This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: std::string::reserve vs std::vector::reserve

From: Peter Soetens <peter dot soetens at mech dot kuleuven dot be>
To: Jonathan Wakely <cow at compsoc dot man dot ac dot uk>
Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:34:53 +0200
Subject: Re: std::string::reserve vs std::vector::reserve
References: <200506161300.37570.peter.soetens@mech.kuleuven.be> <20050616112139.GA2296@compsoc.man.ac.uk>
Reply-to: peter dot soetens at mech dot kuleuven dot be

On Thursday 16 June 2005 13:21, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> The standard was written explicitly so that COW strings would be
> possible (some implementors have since objected that it's worded to make
> non-ref-counted strings too difficult!)
>
> The only requirement on std::string::operator= is that capacity() should
> return "a value at least as large as size()", which libstdc++'s
> implementation does.
>

Thank you for this informative answer !

Peter Soetens

-- 
K.U.Leuven, Mechanical Engineering, Robotics Research Group
<http://www.orocos.org> Tel: +32 16 322772

References:
- std::string::reserve vs std::vector::reserve
  - From: Peter Soetens
- Re: std::string::reserve vs std::vector::reserve
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]