Re: [libxml++] Revisting the Glib::ustring vs. std::string issue.

[Steven <red...@gm...>]

On Tue, July 27, 2010 19:09, David Benoit wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have read all the previous posts regarding the use of Glib::ustring and
> std::string for use with libxml++.  I have even read the bug and the
> associated patch.  I understand Murray's point of view and agree with him
> from a package maintainer's point of view.
>
> However, I would really like to move forward with one part of the proposed
> change, and am willing to produce an updated patch.
>
....
> The second change was to allow the
> underlying type of xmlpp::string to be selected by the installer.  If only
> this change is integrated with the code, the second change can be easily
> done by anyone who really needs it.
>

I'm not really a libxml++ developer, but, when changing the underlying
type in the installer (really the installer, and not some compile flags?),
wouldn't this pose an issue to other applications, dependent on libxml++?
Wouldn't they need to be recompiled as well?
I use Debian, so libxml++ is pre-build and installed using the package
manager, but what if someone creates a binary with the other string
implementation?

Just asking :)

Kind regards,
Steven


-- 
Rarely do people communicate; they just take turns talking.