On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 08:59:23AM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Andre Poenitz wrote: >> I wonder how much resistance the (re- ;-)) introduction of a >> 'real' lyx string class would meet. >> Could be as simple as a struct wrapping a std::string<whatever> >> and delegating all of the work to std::string. >> The main advantages would be 'declarability' (i.e. class DocString; >> would suffice in lots of places where we have #include "docstring.h" >> (and consequently <string>) nowadays), > > If this is the main reason I am not sure it is really worth the extra work. > But you are free to spend your coding time any way you like ;-) > >> and the possibility of having >> convenience functions (i.e. stuff from lstring, but also things like >> 'ends_with()' or such in the class. > > This I agree would be nice. I don't like all the freestanding functions. > >> There should be no performance penalty as all the delegation would >> quite probably be inlined, i.e. the ninary might be even identical. > > Are you sure about that?
I would check, of course. Andre'
