Re: pseudo-specs for a String class

> On ons, 2008-08-27 at 11:43 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>
>> My vote is not to vote until it is clear what you are implementing.
>>
>> The original discussion was about meaningful strings and opaque buffers
>> they will use. Then you said that you are not implementing a string,
>> just a buffer. Right now, I have no idea what you are implementing so I
>> cannot suggest a name for it.
>>
>> Since your code is going to be isolated, it would be easy to rename your
>> classes during the review process.
>
> +1 on that.
>

+1. With a view of re-using MemBuf in the final product. Starting from
KinkieBuf. (Joke, me taking a dig at the content filterers again).

The only thing we seem to agree on here is that the object needed is
neither a string nor a binary blob. But something of a dual nature. Your
stated class hierarchy matches that fairly well.

Though the opportunities opened for abuse of casting are greater when two
object names are given to the same structure.

Amos
Received on Thu Aug 28 2008 - 00:50:06 MDT