On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 21:35, Andrew Tomazos <andrewtomazos_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 2:22 PM Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 21:09, Andrew Tomazos via Std-Proposals
>> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> >
>> > I think this is a problem worth solving. Its against a C++ design principle that built-in references (like const std;:string&) have the lifetime extension feature, whereas user-defined reference-like classes (like std::string_view) do not. In particular, this is one the arguments against migrating from const std::string& to std::string_view.
>> >
>> > I encourage you to submit a proposal for C++23: https://isocpp.org/std/submit-a-proposal
>>
>> We already have one:
>> http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2019/p1179r1.pdf
>
>
> That's interesting Ville, thanks - but (correct me if I am mistaken) I think what Herb is suggesting are tools to better diagnose a "dangling" std::string_view. I think what the OP is proposing is a core language feature that makes std::string_view lifetime-extend its referent (like const std::string& does).


Correct, the approaches are different.