On 09/01/13 17:02, Lubos Lunak wrote:
On Wednesday 09 of January 2013, Michael Meeks wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 16:10 +0200, Noel Grandin wrote:
maybe we need
OUString::valueOfInt32(sal_Int32)
that does the cast for us?
At least it'll be less noisy,
Is there really such a big difference between
OUString::valueOf( sal_Int32( 0 ))
and
OUString::valueOfInt32( 0 )
it has the advantage of being explicit in what type it expects; however
i actually think that is quite irrelevant for a Integer-to-String
conversion (as opposed to a -to-binary conversion); are there any use
cases where converting to a "too big" integer type would mess up the result?
so it would probably be an improvement, but a small one.
Looks less error prone to me; doesn't suffer from odd side-effects of
un-related type changes as badly either;
What makes you think so? Having the type directly in the function name is
almost the same like the explicit cast. If you cast incorrectly, you'll just
as well get incorrect implicit cast when calling the function renamed
function.
but you'll at least implicitly cast the same way on all platforms (since
the sal types don't map to arbitrary types, but to types of a particular
size).
hopefully fixes the perennial
64bit vs. 32bit issues. Can be in-lined to produce ~identical code, we
could deprecated the old valueOf() methods just to beef up the idea that
we're continuing to evolve the sal API ;-)
Any profound objections ? [ not that I've time to do it myself of
course ].
Uhm, but we already have more than enough Hungarian notation all over the
place. If the API is to evolve, it should not do so by going backwards :(.
What I think would work better would be having overloads for each
integer[***]/float type (or a template), all of them still named valueOf().
That means one wouldn't need to bother with what the type actually is and the
functions would just do the right thing (well, as long as the type is not
sal_uInt8 or sal_uInt16, since, SAL types madness striking again, those are
actually sal_Bool resp. sal_Unicode).
i don't like that idea, actually because there are already valueOf
overloads for integral types sal_Bool and sal_Unicode that do something
other than produce a string representation of an integer value, which
seems wrong to me to begin with.
better to add a new overloaded function, say valueOfInt, and have
overloads for all possible C++ integral types, all of which produce
strings with numbers. using that consistently would also solve the
problem of accidentally calling valueOf(a_sal_uInt16) and getting
surprising results.
only question is what to do about the "radix" parameter which is
supported by sal_Int32 and sal_Int64 parameters currently... likely it's
not needed often?
Context
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.