From: Colin A. <col...@go...> - 2008-04-22 19:37:50
|
On 21/04/2008, Eric Bezault <er...@go...> wrote: > In fact having it as creation procedure will allow us to avoid > having to create the intermediary object `l_bytes'. > > After looking at class UC_STRING, I'm wondering whether we should > just adapt the routines `make_from_string' and `make_from_substring' > so that we can pass a STRING_GENERAL. Perhaps we will have to We could do that, as we have the is_string_8 query to choose between the current implementation and the STRING_32 one. > rename the version of `make_from_string' inherited from STRING. > Or add `make_from_string_general', `make_from_substring_general', > make `make_from_substring' obsolete (make it call > `make_from_substring_general') and modify `make_from_string' > to call `make_from_string_general'. I'm not sure what the best > naming convention is. I don't think we need to rename anything. |