----- Original Message ----- > From: Matteo Casalin <matteo.casa...@yahoo.com> > To: libreoffice-dev <LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org> > Cc: Noel Power <nopo...@suse.com> > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 3:19 PM > Subject: OUString concatenation vs OUStringBuffer append > > Hi all, > in a recent patch [1] for String to OUString conversion I replaced the > construction of an OUString from a sequence of OUStringBuffer.append to a > single > concatenation of OUString/constant strings [2]. > Noel Power (whom I thank for the careful review, and is here in copy), > correctly > asks which way is preferred for such an operation: I don't know the answer, > can some expert provide me an insight on this? I find OUString concatenation > easier to read, but this could be not as efficient as the original code, or > just > undesired.
Found the answer in http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2012-December/042038.html ("All the other alternatives [to OUString concatenation], like explicit OUStringBuffer and repeated append() should be now worse in all possible aspects") Sorry for the noise. Cheers Matteo > Thanks and kind regards > Matteo > > [1] > https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/4280/ > > [2] > - OUStringBuffer aString; > - aString.append('('); > - aString.append(static_cast<sal_Int32>(nColMerge)); > - aString.append(','); > - aString.append(static_cast<sal_Int32>(nRowMerge)); > - aString.append(')'); > - return aString.makeStringAndClear(); > + OUString aRet = "(" > + + OUString::number(static_cast<sal_Int32>(nColMerge)) > + + "," > + + OUString::number(static_cast<sal_Int32>(nRowMerge)) > + + ")"; > + return aRet; > _______________________________________________ > LibreOffice mailing list > LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice > _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
