Why require STL just for std::string?
Brought to you by:
leethomason
Menu
▾
▴
Hi Lee,<p>
I'd be the first to describe myself as STL illiterate, but I wonder if tinyxml would be more useful without std::string. As near as I can tell, the only part of STL you use is std::string. I believe I noticed in your documentation that you didn't (or couldn't?) use the STL data structures. Seems like unnecessary complexity for insufficent/marginal advantage.<p>
Everybody's a critic ... sigh.<p>
I'm very impressed with your software. I'm putting together a simple MFC freeware application which will use an XML file as persistent data. I want to avoid the heft of an actual database, and have a tiny footprint. Your software allows reading and modifying xml data from a file, which is exactly what I'm looking for.
Have you considered a version of tinyxml that used MFC for strings and data structures?
Regards,
Lynn Allan
If I may ...
My answer to your post is :
why using MFC just for CString's ?
Seriously, CString is not (by far) as good as std::string. And it's not a standard.
You have to understand that TinyXml works on a lot of different platforms, including Linux, where CString doesn't exist because MFC doesn't exist because it's not running Windows.
std::string is not -heavy- in the way you think it is. It only implies including <string> which also exists on Win32 and can co-exist with MFC's CString.
And there is no .cpp attached, no library, no DLL.
Yves
Uncle :-)
I have no affection for MFC ... my disdain for it is part of why I transitioned to Java ... except I think it is a valid assumption that any Windows computer with Win95 or above will have mfc40.dll, and any computer with Win98-FE or above will have mfc42.dll
Which is neither here nor there ... I took a look at the exe size, and was pleasantly surprised that a "Hello, World" program with std::string wasn't bloated ... much smaller than I expected.