[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: xmlChar uglyness
From: |
David Philippi |
Subject: |
Re: xmlChar uglyness |
Date: |
Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:00:27 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.4.1 |
On Monday 09 September 2002 18:35, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> else if (XMLHelper::equal_str (cur->name, "hotspot"))
> bool
> XMLHelper::equal_str (xmlChar* a, const char*)
> {
> return !strcmp(reinterpret_cast<const char*>(cur->name),
> "hotspot"); }
> ...or something like that? Having dozens of reinterpret_cast<> in the
> code is not really what I want.
Sure, that's a bit shorter and makes it easier to change something if
required. If the method is inline there isn't even any overhead.
I don't like reinterpret_cast<> very much either - it's a bit long. But it's
definitly visible and far bettern then casting a const xmlChar* to a char*.
While strcmp doesn't care wheter it's parameter is a const char* or a char*
there are methods/functions out there who care. That's one of the main
reasons why I'm changing C casts to C++ casts whenever I encounter them with
a bit time remaining.
Bye David
- xmlChar uglyness, Ingo Ruhnke, 2002/09/09
- Re: xmlChar uglyness,
David Philippi <=