On 2012-09-28 16:00, Caolán McNamara wrote:
On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 14:17 +0200, Noel Grandin wrote:
you can do this:
void f(OUString s) {
s = "2";
}
OUString s = "1";
f(s);
cout << s; // will print "2"
That will print "1" not "2".
Maybe you meant
void f(OUString& s) {
s = "2";
}
OUString s = "1";
f(s);
cout << s; // will print "2"
but that's perfectly reasonable.
C.
Yeah, that's what I meant.
But that's also what I have a problem with.
It means that any OUString field or variable is effectively mutable,
which makes the difference between it and OUStringBuffer boil down to
the presence of the nCapacity field.
If you tell me that the saving from not having the nCapacity field is
the motivation, then I get understand, but then we should update the
docs to reflect that fact, rather than pretending that OUString is
immutable.
Disclaimer: http://www.peralex.com/disclaimer.html
Context
- Re: OUString is mutable? (continued)
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.