Re: [RFC] On the uses of less<>() in basic_string

[Jerry Quinn <jlquinn at optonline dot net>]

Bo Persson writes:
 > 
 > ----- Original Message ----- 
 > From: "Paolo Carlini" <pcarlini@suse.de>
 > To: "Bo Persson" <bop@gmb.dk>
 > Cc: "libstdc++" <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>
 > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 6:24 PM
 > Subject: Re: [RFC] On the uses of less<>() in basic_string
 > 
 > 
 > > Bo Persson wrote:
 > >
 > > > No peeking! :-)
 > > >
 > > > How do you know that traits::copy uses memcpy? That is an implementation
 > > > detail that is specifically delegated to char_traits, so that you
 > > > shouldn't
 > > > have to care about that in basic_string. Just use it!
 > >
 > > This is something interesting (i.e., I'm not sure what the standard says
 > ;)
 > >
 > > As far as the instantiations for char and wchar_t are concerned, as an
 > > implementor I'm allowed to peek, right?
 > 
 > Maybe. :-)
 > 
 > If it really matters, and you know the implementors of allocator and
 > char_traits well enough, you might use some inside info. The risk, of
 > course, is that your code might break if their implementation changes. Is it
 > worth the risk?

Given the performance implications of not peeking, I'd say yes.
That's what a testsuite is for.  Besides, we're all one happy library, no?

Jerry Quinn