On 10/03/2012 07:00 PM, Markus Mohrhard wrote:
after I got tinderbox mail complaining about ambiguous overload for
rtl::OUStringBuffer::append(bool) I wanted to ask if we could add a
rtl::OUStringBuffer::append(bool) method or if there are reasons
against it. From what I can see it could in the end even share the
implementation with the sal_Bool variant just needs an own method in
rtl::OUStringBuffer.
the overloads of OUStringBuffer::append are pretty horrible already
(e.g. append(sal_Bool) vs. append(char) or append(sal_Unicode) which is
always accidentally invoked when you pass a short); but adding
append(bool) won't make that any worse than it is.
Seems like append(bool) is not possible without adjusting a lot of
places. The commit seems to have caused some test failures and
crashes. I reverted it for now.
...which only goes to show what a horrible mess C++ is in practice.
bool is rather special, but you easily forget to consider all the
consequences of that. Turns out that code like
aBuf.append( pElementType->pTypeName );
(typelib_static_sequence_type_init,
cppu/source/typelib/static_types.cxx), where pElementType->pTypeName is
of type rtl_uString*, now chooses for overload resolution the standard
boolean conversion from rtl_uString* to bool (yielding true, so
appending "true" to aBuf) rather than the user-defined conversion by
constructor from rtl_uString* to rtl::OUString.
Stephan
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
