Subject: Re: [isocpp-lib-ext] D1030R4 draft 2: std::filesystem::path_view
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-10-15 09:20:23
Niall Douglas wrote:
> Your mechanism would have that implicit and thus more subject to
> unintentional duplication of work performed, whereas the existing
> mechanism is explicit and less subject to surprise because it forces the
> user to spell things out.
Conversely, it also scopes the temporary buffer properly by default, whereas
you could easily duplicate and triplicate the stack space required unless
you scope the c_str<> variables by hand. But yes, I see your point.
> The Deleter can have state, just pass it in to the constructor.
In R4 it can. I was looking at R3, because, as you may have guessed, I had
to open it in order to look at the design rationale.
> If we insisted on Allocators, we would force a needless extra dynamic
> memory allocation and memory copy solely because we insisted on
I don't see why.
SG16 list run by email@example.com