Specializations of std::char_traits
Wed Jul 16 17:40:00 GMT 2003
On Wednesday, July 16, 2003, at 8:57AM, B. Kosnik wrote:
>> (Users can't specialize std::char_traits for fundamental types.)
> For this reason, I'm more inclined to provide link-time definitions for
> unsigned char/signed char/unsigned short/short, where int_type is
> clear. I think this would be a good idea. These would not be in-line
> I think that would be ok. What do you think about this solution?
I think that would be a pretty clean solution. It's not quite what I
imagining, though: my suggestion was that we provide fully generic
versions, and that we just punt in int_type and the like. That is, we'd
have a char_traits that's just barely enough so that users can write
std::basic_string<int> (or unsigned short, or long long, or whatever)
and that still can't be used for I/O. My guess is that this will meet
needs of the vast majority of users, that very few people really want
to instantiate std::basic_ostream<int>.
I can send in a patch if you think my description isn't clear enough,
but my feeling is that the two alternatives are both pretty simple.
More information about the Libstdc++