🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <VANDEVOD.95Aug16144504@avs.cs.rpi.edu>, vandevod@cs.rpi.edu (David Vandevoorde) writes:
[..]
|> 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())	?

Yes. I know, I want the string represented as something of type const char*,
so I call static_cast<const char*>. IMHO it's inconvienent to look up the
class to find that I need to call a method called c_str() to get a const char*.
Using methods for conversions results in _globally_ inconsistent naming schemes:
string uses c_str() other classes/libraries (eg myVector, mySet) may use
toString() or toCharptr() and other classes call it stringify() etc.


Ulf Schuenemann

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ulf Schünemann
Fakultät für Informatik, Technische Universität München, Germany.
email: schuenem@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
WWW:   http://www.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/cgi-bin/nph-gateway/hphalle2/~schuenem/index.html

[ 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. ]