I don't see a real need for the base class. On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 11:05 AM Vinnie Falco via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Here is an example signature:
string_view f (string_view input1, string_view input2, fixed_capacity_string_base& temp);
I would rather use span<char> or span
- The Traits template parameter might be a valid candidate for
removal. I certainly never needed it, but my guess is that removing it makes only sense, if you also only support plain char (i.e. no wchar or char32_t) as a character type.
I can be perfectly happy supporting only `char`, but we could offer wchar and char32_t variants using explicit instantiation in the non-header-only configuration mode, and still get the benefits of separate compilation.
I like the ideia of removing Traits, but I would keep CharT. Don't see any inconsistency in that. Regards