Introduce StringBuilder utility around raw_string_ostream
james at jamesmolloy.co.uk
Thu Jun 12 09:21:49 PDT 2014
FWIW, I like Alp's suggestion. There are a bunch of ways to do string
building in LLVM (Twine, raw_string_ostream, std::stringstream). I'd
appreciate a single mechanism for making strings.
And the important thing I as a user would love to see is checking. Am I
performing unsafe operations? Will my call result in references to
deallocated storage? My experience with Twine has been a succession of
"bugger, that was a reference to a temporary object. Add a .str() here"
until it works.
Alp's suggestion seems to fit that usecase, make it simpler, and make it
more efficient. So I'm all for it.
On 12 June 2014 16:58, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote:
>> The existing stream classes are really light append-only non-seekable
>> streams. reset() is a higher-level feature that makes onerous assumptions
>> about storage, both "what it can do" and "what we're allowed to do with it".
>> So to put reset() or seeking operations inside the primitive ostream
>> subclasses would be quite a layering violation.
> I dunno. raw_string_ostream has a 'str' method that returns a std::string
> reference. I don't know what we could possibly do to this class that would
> more tightly couple it to the underlying storage. ;]
> But I'm not asking you to add this functionality, just saying that if this
> is a problem in practice there seems to be an easy solution.
>> I can't see how that'd be done without making a muddle of the ostream
>> primitive classes. Adding optional storage to a "simple adaptor class"
>> strikes me as a poor idea because it'd no longer be usable be a thin
>> interface that's easily inheritable.
> I don't see why raw_string_ostream is a thin interface or is easily
> inheritable. I think it probably should be declared as final. It is a very
> specific, concrete wrapper around a std::string and a raw_ostream. Same
> goes for the svector variant.
>> At 25 LoC the proposed implementation is still pretty tight even after
>> adding the stack allocation facility. And it doesn't hack up ostream
>> classes, and fixes various points of use, all clear pluses to me.
> We disagree here, restating things seems unlikely to progress anything.
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-commits