Re: user-defined types and basic_string

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

"Anthony Feick" <afeick@hotmail.com> writes:

| Thank you for posting the example for an "unsigned short" basic_string.  I 
| didn't get a chance to get back to this until yesterday, but had some 
| problems with the final example you posted.
| 
| I was unable to implicitly create characters from integers :

   inline character<unsigned short>
   as_character(unsigned short c)
   {
     character<unsigned short> r = { c };
     return c;
   }

With inlining and the named return value optimization, that should
cost nothing.

| basic_string<char_type> theString;
| theString.append(0x20);

  theString.append(as_character(0x20));

| theString.append('o');


  theString.append(as_character('o'));

while the syntax isn't the best of the world, it does highlight what
is going on.
  
| No amount of casting was able to fix this, and constructors in character<T> 
| will not work because then it isn't Plain Old Data (POD??).

Just use what constructors are: functions that construct an object
from given argument :-) (see above).

| I ended up not using templates at all, instead just defining char_traits as:

As noted in the discussion, that may or may not work with other
implementations or future versions of V3.  Only you know how portable
you want your constructs.

-- Gaby