🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "OB" == Oren Ben-Kiki <oren@melissa.schema.co.il> writes:
In article <MATT.95Aug16093212@physics2.Berkeley.EDU> oren@melissa.schema.co.il (Oren Ben-Kiki) writes:
OB> Distribution: Rick Hollinbeck (rickh@csn.net) wrote: : Don &
OB> (bashford@toad.scripps.edu) wrote: : : According to Plauger's book
OB> on the Draft Standard C++ library, : : there is no "operator const
OB> char *" for the string class.  : : [snip]

OB> : From what I understand, the const char* conversion operator
OB> would trigger : too many implicit type conversions in certain
OB> situations, leading to many : unpleasant surprises. the c_str()
OB> member is a way to control this. (See : Plauger's recent article
OB> in the C/C++ Users Journal which discusses this.)

OB> But now that we have the 'explicit' keyword, shouldn't this
OB> decision be reconsidered? This seems like just the situation for
OB> which it was intended.

The `explicit' keyword is currently only applicable to constructors,
not conversion operators. Do you think:

	f(static_cast<char*>(s))

is more convenient than:

	f(s.c_str())	?

	Daveed

[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]