From: Eric B. <er...@go...> - 2008-04-22 20:32:31
|
Colin Adams wrote: > 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. We don't need `is_string_8'. We just need to use STRING_GENERAL.code. >> 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. We do: `make_from_string' is inherited from STRING with an argument of type STRING. We cannot redefine it to accept an argument of type STRING_GENERAL. -- Eric Bezault mailto:er...@go... http://www.gobosoft.com |