On 21/04/2008, Eric Bezault <
ericb@...> 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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100.
Use priority code J8TL2D2.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone_______________________________________________
gobo-eiffel-develop mailing list
gobo-eiffel-develop@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gobo-eiffel-develop
