After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 136915 - Improved string function
Improved string function
Status: RESOLVED NOTABUG
Product: glibmm
Classification: Bindings
Component: strings
2.4.x
Other Linux
: Normal enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: gtkmm-forge
gtkmm-forge
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2004-03-11 18:03 UTC by Alberto Paro
Modified: 2005-12-05 12:16 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---

Attachments
Patch (5.81 KB, patch)
2004-03-11 18:04 UTC, Alberto Paro 		none Details | Review

Description Alberto Paro 2004-03-11 18:03:02 UTC 
This patch add some new ability to string handling function:
- a tokenize function;
- a join function ;
- some easy text replace functions.
Comment 1 Alberto Paro 2004-03-11 18:04:13 UTC 
Created attachment 25528 [details] [review]
Patch
Comment 2 Murray Cumming 2004-03-12 11:05:51 UTC 
1. We have been at API freeze since March 1st:
http://www.gnome.org/start/2.5/bindings/
So I have to ask why this should break the freeze instead of waiting
for gtkmm 2.6. The unstable gtkmm 2.5 will start after 2.4.0 on March
22nd.

2. These are not wrappers for any glib functionality, I think. Or do
they have any equivalents in standard C++? Why should they be in glibmm?

3. I think you should pass all std::list and ustring parameters as
const references.
Comment 3 Alberto Paro 2004-03-12 12:11:08 UTC 
1. I know the API freeze. If useful apply the patch on next 2.6 release.

2. These are not wrappers for any glib functionality, I think. 
They should be in glibmm because they fill a lack in glibmm API (such
as tokenize and join). They use Glib::ustring manipulation.

3. I'll do.
Comment 4 Murray Cumming 2004-03-13 22:32:23 UTC 
2 Do they have any equivalents in standard C++?
Comment 5 Murray Cumming 2004-10-14 15:34:01 UTC 
Please respond.

At the moment, I am unlikely to approve this patch unless it fills an obvious need.