Re: OUString is mutable?

On 2012-09-28 15:37, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Hi Noel,
>
> On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 14:17 +0200, Noel Grandin wrote:
> > It just seems to me that we could easily enough steal a bit from the
> > length field to indicate that the buffer is immutable, and then we could
> > reduce our complexity by eliminating OUStringBuffer.
>         We already steal bits from the ref-count for magic like this: static
> strings, and interned strings ;-)
>
>         The question is - would it be more obvious if:
>
> void method(rtl::OUString &rFoo, rtl::OUString &rBaa)
> {
>         rFoo += "foo"; // no exception it's mutable.
>         rBaa += "baa"; // exception because it's immutable.
> }
>
>         :-) i assume not. OTOH - I too am not a huge fan of the sal string
> classes for general usability - but I've not done a ton of work with
> them recently to be fair.

So that idea is workable - great.

In your example, it wouldn't throw an exception, it would simply notice 
that it's internal buffer was immutable, allocate a new buffer, and 
append the string to that.

I'm asking because I'm starting to do XubString/UniString -> OUString 
cleanup work, and the work would be a lot simpler if we only had one 
target  - OUString.



Disclaimer: http://www.peralex.com/disclaimer.html