Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 04:09:01PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> | Lars> and instead of the STRCONV(), you would need a string(). So what
>> | Lars> did you really gain? (except hiding the ugly conversion)
>> >
>> | Why would we need this? I have never seen that we need
>> | str = string("foo");
>> | instead of
>> | str = "foo";
>> >
>> | So what's the problem here?
>>
>> If we agree that implicit conversions is bad, all conversions need to
>> be tagged with something. (and I am not adding more non-standard
>> c-tors to lyxstring either.)
>
| std::string has a constructor
>
| basic_string(const charT* s, const Allocator& a = Allocator());
>
| so there is no need to add a "non-standard c-tor". I find the extra
| verbosity in str = string("foo"); plain ugly.
the issue is:
ostringstream ost;
lyxstring lstr = ost.str();
^^^^^ ^^^^
lyxstring basic_string
So to make this compile you either:
- use c_str()
- or anoother markup (STRCONV f.ex to make it ugly and tell
_why_ it is there.
- use implicit conversions. but I do not like that because then
it is never shown why the conversion is there and that it is ugly
--
Lgb
