>
> Hi Jason (and everyone),
>>
>> Thanks for the great question about what makes this "modern C++"!
>>
>> In my view, the key is consolidating related data into a single,
>> self-contained type – just like `std::string_view` did for (ptr, len)
>> pairs. Passing one parameter (a `cstring_view`) instead of two (const char*
>> + size_t) reduces boilerplate and makes interfaces cleaner and less
>> error-prone. It's the same philosophy that led to `string_view`, `span`,
>> ranges, etc.: encapsulate common patterns into dedicated types for better
>> expressiveness and safety.
>>
>> To illustrate the trade-offs more concretely:
>>
>> - **cstring_view vs raw (ptr + len)**: 1 parameter vs 2 – simpler, more
>> readable function signatures.
>> - **cstring_view vs raw ptr**: Avoids repeated `strlen` calls (0 vs
>> potentially n times in deep call chains, especially when mixing WinAPI
>> calls with direct string ops like memcpy/logging).
>> - **cstring_view vs std::string**: No allocation (0 vs 1 heap allocation)
>> – crucial for performance-critical code.
>> - **cstring_view vs std::string_view**: Safe for direct C API/WinAPI use
>> (guaranteed null-termination) vs risk of UB (if the view is a trimmed/split
>> substring without trailing '\0').
>>
>> A real-world scenario where `cstring_view` shines (and feels very
>> "modern"):
>>
>> I'm writing a performance-sensitive library (e.g., parsing/protocol
>> handling) where I receive a raw `char*` buffer. I need high throughput, so:
>>
>> - I can't afford `std::string` (unnecessary allocation – same reason
>> `string_view` exists).
>> - Raw (ptr + len) is too verbose (every function takes two params).
>> - Raw ptr alone forces repeated `strlen` on deep call stacks (hurts perf
>> when chaining logging, DB saves, and WinAPI calls).
>> - `std::string_view` isn't safe if sub-views (trim/split) lose the
>> trailing '\0' – risking UB in lower-level WinAPI/printf calls.
>>
>> Here, `cstring_view` is the sweet spot: one parameter, cached length for
>> fast access, guaranteed null-termination for safe C interop, and zero-cost
>> internally (since the library controls construction and won't "attack
>> itself" with bad lengths or malicious embedded nulls).
>>
>> Does this scenario make sense to you as a solid modern C++ use case? Or
>> am I overlooking better options?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Best,
>> FPE(foxofice)
>
>