Holger Brunn <holger.brunn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I think something should be done to fix the "assign cString to
> > itself" case, even though this is very unlikely. This does go wrong
> > with the current code, even with the copy constructor added.
>
> Okay, now as all seems to be said, here is a patch that checks for
> that case (that may happen when working with references/pointers to
> cStrings), leaving Klaus with the decision whether it's useful to
> have it or not.
why not just:
typedef std::string cString;
or:
class cString : public std::string { ... };
i really can't understand all this messing with a datatype allready
implemented elsewhere. what is so special about cString that other
string implementations do not have?
my 0.02E
clemens
