I'm kind of baffled by string classes that treat NUL specially. :)
Maybe we should stop overloading the word "string" for both the
traditional C style zero byte -terminated string of bytes, and classes
in C++ or other object-oriented languages that contain a
one-dimensional array of characters (note that I didn't say "char")
that might be mutable or not.
It is a bit sad that the C++ people didn't come up with a new term
when "string" is already so encumbered by history.
consider the K&R approach of misusing one of the legitimate member values as
sentinel as a bad mistake.
Bah, that is a silly argument, decisions made in the early 1970s are
set in stone by now *in the context of C and POSIX*. Don't argue they
are wrong because some geniuses later decided to use the same
terminology ("string") for something completely different.
--tml
Context
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.