[poppler] GooString — Why do we use it instead of std::string?

[Alec Taylor]

If I wrote a PATCH to replace all GooString and GBool usages in
pdftohtml wtih bool and std::string, would it be approved?

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Albert Astals Cid <aacid at kde.org> wrote:
> A Dissabte, 5 de novembre de 2011, Alec Taylor vàreu escriure:
>> As you say, that only used to be a problem in stdlib, it is no longer a
>> problem.
>>
>> There are various features of std::string not present in GooString,
>> which I need for my patches to poppler.
>
> As i said, if it is for use in pdftohtml, go for it, use std::string.
>
> Albert
>
>>
>> Most obviously, it is missing a substr() member.
>>
>> Are there any restrictions/problems with the current std::string when
>> compared with GooString?
>>
>> > As far as presence of GooString in public API is concerned, I guess it
>> > comes from the fact (or FUD otherwise) that putting template C++
>> > classes in public API is considered ABI-unsafe (easier to break). And
>> > while there aren't any issues with STL in this regard recently, Boost
>> > for instance would be a different story.
>> > So GooString would be safe alternative.
>> >
>> > regards
>> > MM
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> poppler mailing list
>> poppler at lists.freedesktop.org
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler
> _______________________________________________
> poppler mailing list
> poppler at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/poppler
>