"Abecedarian" <abecedarian@spambob.com> wrote in message
news:1115066462.468273.155130@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...[color=blue]
> Howard wrote:[color=green]
>> <abecedarian@spambob.com> wrote in message
>> news:1115058822.083288.177890@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...[color=darkred]
>> > Mike Wahler wrote:
>> >> <abecedarian@spambob.com> wrote in message
>> >> > Standard C++ has no string class.
>> >>
>> >> Certainly it does (its standard library does). It's declared
>> >> (in namespace 'std') by standard header <string>.
>> >
>> > Look into the header <string>. I bet you don't find a string class
>> > there.[/color]
>>
>> The class std::string is most certainly part of the standard C++[/color]
> language.[color=green]
>> It's a template class. It's defined as:
>>
>> typedef basic_string<char, char_traits<char>, allocator<char> >[/color]
> string;
>
> BTW, this is a class template.[/color]
Well, if you want to get technical, the above is just a typedef... an alias
to a template, in this case.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> Just because it's a template class, doesn't mean it's not a class![/color]
>
> It's not a class, it's a template with 3 template parameters. If it
> were a class usability would be much better. Just look at the compiler
> error messages you get using the so called "string class".
>[color=green]
>> Check the standard if you don't believe it's part of the language.[/color]
>
> But you just confirmed that there is no string class just a clumsy
> basic_string<char, char_traits<char>, allocator<char> > class template.
>[/color]
What's clumsy about it? Perhaps you're just not comfortable with templates?
[color=blue]
> Don't shoot the messenger ... ;-)[/color]
I always shoot the messenger. Even for good news. I just like doing things
like that. :-O
But, I fail to see your point. You stated that "Standard C++ has no string
class". If all you are saying is that the class std::string is actually a
template, then so what? It's still part of the standard, and you still
create an instance of it just like any other class:
#include <string>
using std::string;
int main()
{
string strA(); // empty string
string strB = "something"; // copy of "something"
string* pstrA = new string("something"); // pointer to string containing
"something"
delete pstrA;
}
Your statement that C++ has no such class implies that "string" is not part
of standard C++, and that the OP ought not rely on it. But that's simply
wrong, if that was your intent. If your statement was simply that
std::string is technically a typedef for a template, then you might have
stated that explicitly, instead of simply declaring there was no such class.
(But in that case, why bother making the statement at all?)
-Howard
