Re: sso tradeoffs

[Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>]

Howard Hinnant wrote:

> This is just a heads up, and probably an obvious one at that, but I 
> thought I'd err on the side of repetitiveness:
>
> When we do an sso string (as the official std::string), we at the 
> same time need an extension non-mutable string whose copy constructor 
> can't throw (probably via refcounting).  This will be needed in the 
> <stdexcept> classes (which currently use std::string).

This part actually I *clearly* understood the first time from you in
Lillehammer: for some reason, during a discussion you said the basics of
it, then I did some homework and everything was obvious. In fact
somewhere in Bugzilla, I think, I wrote (ehr, repeated ;) it.

> Hmm... unless we can get the exception throwing mechanism in the 
> language to promise to always move instead of copy...

This is newer and much more exciting!

Paolo.