basic_string
use of charT*
Section: 27.4.3 [basic.string] Status: NAD Submitter: Howard Hinnant Opened: 2011-09-11 Last modified: 2016-01-28
Priority: Not Prioritized
View other active issues in [basic.string].
View all other issues in [basic.string].
View all issues with NAD status.
Discussion:
For C++11 we gave all of the containers, including basic_string new generalized pointer types:
typedef typename allocator_traits<Allocator>::pointer pointer: typedef typename allocator_traits<Allocator>::const_pointer const_pointer;
However, the constructors, assignment, and member functions still traffic exclusively in terms
of const charT*
, for example:
basic_string(const charT* s, const Allocator& a = Allocator());
Was this an oversight? Did we mean instead:
basic_string(const_pointer s, const Allocator& a = Allocator());
Rationale:
It's intentional. char_traits
assumes that all elements of
a string can be accessed indirect on plain pointers. So basic_string
doesn't support allocators with fancy pointers or references. And we meant
to do that.
basic_string(const charT* s, const Allocator& a = Allocator());
This constructor allows us to create a basic_string
object from a string literal.
If we were to change the pointer type, that would no longer be possible.
allocator::pointer
type.
Now what about the return value of 'c_str()
', should that return an allocator::pointer
?
Again, the answer (I believe) is 'no' because this is the function that allows us
to pass the string's contents to a legacy/OS 'C' API. It is deliberately returning
a raw pointer for a reason.
There was an issue where vector::data
was changed to return an allocator::pointer
to the internal buffer, and this was changed back exactly because this was intended
to support passing to external APIs.
Do we have a use-case where the pointer type of internal data structures of our
containers (notably basic_string
and vector
) need to be exposed through a public API?
All my current use-cases for allocator::pointer
are specific to the implementation
of containers themselves.
Proposed resolution: