> And all those extra member functions could just as well be separate > functions. > > It seems that even the std::string is now considered too fat. Most of > what it does is possible to implement outside of the class. > > So I am not argueing against functions that operate on strings. I am > argueing against the functions being part of the class.
I guess it's mostly for convenience and that people got used to the paradigm. Although a flamewar ingitor topic, personally I consider QString fn; fopen(fn.local8Bit(), ...); to be more concise than class QStringUtils; ... fopen(QStringUtils::local8Bit(fn), ...); A winner would probably be the code below, since it's extensible -- you could add your own functions to the namespace. I guess you're right, then. But still, with Qt you already have it implemented, and whether it's part of QString or not, you still don't have to roll your own. using QStringUtilsNameSpace; ... fopen(local8Bit(fn), ...); Kuba
