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.