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

[Albert Astals Cid]

A Dimarts, 8 de novembre de 2011, vàreu escriure:
> If I wrote a PATCH to replace all GooString and GBool usages in
> pdftohtml wtih bool and std::string, would it be approved?

No. Changing perfectly working code for no reason is not a good idea.

Albert

> 
> 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