«

i have a doubt regarding std::string class..
that whether their instance are immutable or not.. like as we have in
other language

..net framework..
system.string class instance are immutable.

java
java.lang.string class instance are immutable..

same as in C++..
std::string class are immutable or not???

i hope it is not..
as it is typedef of template<class charT, class traits =
char_traits<charT>, class Allocator = allocator<charT> > class
basic_string.

wrote:
> i have a doubt regarding std::string class..
> that whether their instance are immutable or not.

Not unless they are declared as const.

--
Ian Collins

Thanx Alot for your response..
actually there was a guy who was not not agreeing to this.

On 5 Feb., 22:16, praveenraj1...@gmail.com wrote:
> i have a doubt regarding std::string class..
> that whether their instance are immutable or not.. like as we
> have in other language
>
> .net framework..
> system.string class instance are immutable.

The string class in C# is funny. It is a class (reference type) but
string is immutable and has many overloaded operators so you can use
it like a value type:

string a = foo();
a += bar(); // a points to another immutable string now (C#)

Assembling a string that way is very costly which is why in C# and in
Java you typically have a StringBuilder class which is like a string
but mutable.

In C++ a non-const string is mutable and has value semantics:

string a = foo();
a += bar(); // a will be the same string object (C++)

There's no need for a "StringBuilder" class.

HTH,
SG

Jeff Schwab wrote:
> Ian Collins wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Thanx Alot for your response..
>>> actually there was a guy who was not not agreeing to this.
>>
>> A simple bit of test code would have put him straight!
>
> True in this case, but misleading in general. Suppose he had been
> wondering about C-style string literals, rather than std::string:
>
> int main() {
> char* p = "hello";
> p[1] = 'a';
> }

"/tmp/z.cc", line 2: Warning: String literal converted to char* in
initialization.

--
Ian Collins

Ian Collins wrote:

> Jeff Schwab wrote:
> > Ian Collins wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > > Thanx Alot for your response..
> > > > actually there was a guy who was not not agreeing to this.
> > >
> > > A simple bit of test code would have put him straight!
> >
> > True in this case, but misleading in general. Suppose he had been
> > wondering about C-style string literals, rather than std::string:
> >
> > int main() {
> > char* p = "hello";
> > p[1] = 'a';
> > }
>
> "/tmp/z.cc", line 2: Warning: String literal converted to char* in
> initialization.

While a very useful diagnostic, it is not a required one.



Brian

Default User wrote:
> Ian Collins wrote:
>
>> Jeff Schwab wrote:
>>> Ian Collins wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Thanx Alot for your response..
>>>>> actually there was a guy who was not not agreeing to this.
>>>> A simple bit of test code would have put him straight!
>>> True in this case, but misleading in general. Suppose he had been
>>> wondering about C-style string literals, rather than std::string:
>>>
>>> int main() {
>>> char* p = "hello";
>>> p[1] = 'a';
>>> }
>> "/tmp/z.cc", line 2: Warning: String literal converted to char* in
>> initialization.
>
> While a very useful diagnostic, it is not a required one.
>
Alas, true. Which is a shame.

--
Ian Collins

wrote:
> i have a doubt regarding std::string class..
> that whether their instance are immutable or not.. like as we have in
> other language
>
> ..net framework..
> system.string class instance are immutable.
>
> java
> java.lang.string class instance are immutable..
No such class exists. but the java.lang.String class is indeed
"immutable" (with the exception of hashCode(), but externally it is
immutable).
I believe .NET String is also immutable, but I don't know.
>
> same as in C++..
> std::string class are immutable or not???
std::string is definitely mutable, "const std::string" on the other hand
is not.

>
> i hope it is not..
You're hope is answered.
> as it is typedef of template<class charT, class traits =
> char_traits<charT>, class Allocator = allocator<charT> > class
> basic_string.
What does this have to do with your hope?

--
Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/>

> You're hope is answered.> as it is typedef of template<class charT, class traits =
> > char_traits<charT>, class Allocator = allocator<charT> > class
> > basic_string.
>
> What does this have to do with your hope?
>

as basic_string are mutable.

On 5 Feb., 23:48, Victor Bazarov <v.Abaza...@comAcast.net> wrote:
> SG wrote:
> > The string class in C# is funny. It is a class (reference type) but
> > string is immutable and has many overloaded operators so you can use
> > it like a value type:
>
> > * string a = foo();
> > * a += bar(); // a points to another immutable string now (C#)
>
> > Assembling a string that way is very costly which is why in C# and in
> > Java you typically have a StringBuilder class which is like a string
> > but mutable.
>
> > In C++ a non-const string is mutable and has value semantics:
>
> > * string a = foo();
> > * a += bar(); // a will be the same string object (C++)
>
> > There's no need for a "StringBuilder" class.
>
> This information is misleading, I believe. *How is the fact that in C#

Misleading was certnainly not my intention.

> 'a' suddenly "points to another" string different than the fact that in
> C++ 'a' *can* reallocate it buffer?

Yes, there's little difference. But in C# the string OBJECT is a new
one (as in identity) and the object _reference_ has been mutated
whereas in C++ the string _object_ is mutated.

> To the programmer, 'a' is the same in both cases.

Yes.

> So, semantically, C++ string and C# strings are the same, mutable.

If by "C# string" you mean a C# string reference then yes. The C#
string _object_ isn't. But we can say that a C# string object
_reference_ behaves like a "value type" (in .NET terminology). That's
why I said "C# string is funny". I didn't point out explicitly that to
a programmer there's no difference but it was part of what I tried to
communicate.

Cheers!
SG