Hi,
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 04:05:35PM +0200, Noel Grandin wrote:
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.
I find it perfectly reasonable that a variable of a value type (as
opposed to polymorphic type) is assignable. In fact, I would be
surprised if it were not. Value types are supposed to mimic the behavior
of primitive types; that is why copy constructor and operator= are
created by the compiler unless one disables them. You are not surprised
that
int i(1);
i = 2;
or
char const* s("1");
s = "2";
works, are you? So why
rtl::OUString s("1");
s = "2":
should be different? C++ already has a way to express that a variable is
not mutable: the 'const' modifier.
Last, but not least, working assignment is requirement for many, if not
all, STL containers.
D.
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.