Re: [TSVN] CString vs std::string

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:35:27 +0000, Will Dean <svn@indcomp.co.uk> wrote:

> The shell extension (and others?) use std::string rather than the MFC/ATL
> CString. Does anyone know the rationale for this?

Yes. I wanted to keep the shell extension part free of MFC/ATL. That
part alone should be very lightweigth, i.e. not needing any other
dll's to load.

> I was wondering if we could get rid of std::string, and just include
> <atlstr.h> to get CString in the shell extension.
>
> I know that pre-VC7 CString implied 'lots of MFC', which we might not want
> for a shell extension, but now that one can get it on its own from ATL,
> there isn't the same penalty.

I know that MFC7 and ATL7 have so called common classes, with CStringT
being one of them. But AFAIK even using CStringT without MFC (only
ATL) means having to link (statically or dynamically) with another
dll.

> I've nothing against std::string, but it would be nice not to have an extra
> string class, and the duplicates of some of the UTF8 functions.

We could gain much more if we would drop Win98 support ;) That way we
could reduce the UTF8 functions and many many #ifndef UNICODE
statements.

If there's no good reason to using ATL/MFC in the shell extension, I'd
like to keep it out of there.

Stefan

-- 
       ___
  oo  // \\      "De Chelonian Mobile"
 (_,\/ \_/ \     TortoiseSVN
   \ \_/_\_/>    The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
   /_/   \_\     http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tortoisesvn.tigris.org