不可变字符串vs std :: string [英] immutable strings vs std::string

问题描述

我最近一直在阅读关于不可变字符串的信息，此处和这里以及一些有关为什么D 选择了不可变字符串。似乎有很多优点。

• 简单的线程安全


• 更安全
$

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• $ b

  更多新的语言有不可变的字符串，D2.0，Java，C＃，Python等。

  
  
  

  C ++会从不可变字符串中受益吗？ / p>
  
  

  是否可以在c ++（或c ++ 0x）中实现具有所有这些优点的不可变字符串类？

  
  
  

  ---

  
  
  

  更新：

  
  
  

  不可变字符串有两种尝试 const_string 和 fix_str 。在过去的十年中，这两种方法都没有更新。它们是否被使用？为什么const_string不会加速？

  解决方案

  作为意见：

  
  
  
  
  
  • 是的，我非常喜欢C ++的不可变字符串库。
  
  
  • 不，我不喜欢std :: string是不可变的。
  
  
  
  
  

  真的值得做吗（作为标准库功能）？我会说不。 const的使用给了你本地不可变的字符串，系统编程语言的基本本质意味着你真的需要可变字符串。

  
  

  I've recent been reading about immutable strings, here and here as well some stuff about why D chose immutable strings. There seem to be many advantages.

  • trivially thread safe
  • more secure
  • more memory efficient in most use cases.
  • cheap substrings (tokenizing and slicing)

  Not to mention most new languages have immutable strings, D2.0, Java, C#, Python, etc.

  Would C++ benefit from immutable strings?

  Is it possible to implement an immutable string class in c++ (or c++0x) that would have all of these advantages?

  ---

  update:

  There are two attempts at immutable strings const_string and fix_str. Neither have been updated in half a decade. Are they even used? Why didn't const_string ever make it into boost?

  解决方案

  As an opinion:

  • Yes, I'd quite like an immutable string library for C++.
  • No, I would not like std::string to be immutable.

  Is it really worth doing (as a standard library feature)? I would say not. The use of const gives you locally immutable strings, and the basic nature of systems programming languages means that you really do need mutable strings.

  这篇关于不可变字符串vs std :: string的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！