Re: About Strings

On 03/20/2012 03:29 PM, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 15:20 +0100, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > On Tuesday 20 of March 2012, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 13:39 +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> > > > (And even if immutable classes are
> > > > generally also a good idea in C++, esp. in combination with
> > > > multi-threading, the mutable rtl::OUString::operator= spoils this,
> > > > anyway.)
> > >
> > > And the += operator irritates me.
> >
> >   Before I start experimenting with more stuff in OUString that might look a
> > bit like operator+= , what exactly is so irritating about operator= or
> > operator+= in OUString and why?
>
> It's just that if OUString was supposed to be immutable, then a
> foo += bar; "feels wrong" to me in some vague way that, I guess
> bizarrely, foo = foo + bar doesn't. *shrug*

To me, both look equally wrong if OUString is considered immutable, and 
equally OK if it isn't.

Stephan