Re: replacing OUString::valueOf(static_cast<sal_Int32>) ??

On 01/10/2013 02:55 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> On Thursday 10 of January 2013, Noel Grandin wrote:
> > https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/1625/
>
>   Can we please keep the discussion still here? Gerrit may be fine for pointing
> out technical details in the code, but it's not very suitable for discussions
> about anything beyond that.
>
> - There's no need for valueOfChar(). There is already OUString ctor from
> sal_Unicode, so the valueOf() overload for it is just making an obvious thing
> complicated. Code using it can be converted to use the ctor instead.
>
> - It's a question if we really need 'OUString::valueOfBool( foo )' instead of
> simply 'foo ? OUString( "true" ) : OUString( "false" )' (such a pity the
> string literals handling doesn't allow "foo ? "true" : "false"' ). I wonder
> how many places in the code really need to convert a boolean to the hardcoded
> english string representation.
>
> - When more or less deprecating valueOf() this way, it has also float
> overloads, so something should be created for those too.
>
> - I'm still not sold on the naming, OUString::valueInt() doesn't say much and
> OUString::valueOfInt() feels cryptic. Can we please use something obvious
> that doesn't need decyphering, such as OUString::number() or
> OUString::fromInt() (as much as I still don't like the idea of harcoding the
> irrelevant type information in the name)?

Btw, the name "valueOf" and the idea of overloading it for all 
conceivable (sal) types comes from the -- somewhat misguided -- attempt 
at modelling rtll::OUString after java.lang.String.

The "fromInt" etc. names look OK to me, too.

Re dropping valueOfBool, I'm not sure how many places actually use it; 
"for i in solver/*/lib/*.so*; do nm "$i" -D --undef | grep -F 
_valueOfBoolean; done" does indicate its not completely unused.  Also, 
we have rtl_ustr_valueOfBoolean around anyway.

Stephan