Re: urlstring testing/enhancement

[David Sugar]

I agree, we can overload and should have std::string versions.  This has been 
changing over time as Federico notes.

On Thursday 09 January 2003 05:53, Federico Montesino Pouzols wrote:
> Hi, ...
>
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 04:45:04PM -0800, Chad Yates wrote:
> > I built urlstring testcases this weekend. Here are the test cases
> > performed: URLStringTest.testBinaryBase64EncodeDecode ...
> >   URLStringTest.testStringVersion ...
> >   URLStringTest.testTypicalUrlEncodeDecode ...
> >   URLStringTest.testTypicalTextBase64EncodeDecode ...
> >   URLStringTest.testSimpleTextBase64EncodeDecode ...
> >   URLStringTest.testComplexTextBase64EncodeDecode ...
> >   URLStringTest.testPaddingPerfect ...
> >   URLStringTest.testPadding1Short ...
> >   URLStringTest.testPadding2Short ...
> >
> > I also added Base64 functions that take std::string arguments for the
> > encode output and the decode input.  I don't know where the line is
> > supposed to be relating to string usage as I see most of common c++ is
> > char* based, but there seems to be std::string usage in some classes. 
> > personally I like having it as an overload option.  I can post diffs
> > showing the new functions if they are wanted.
>
>       I think we should include these new functions. For the last
> months some things have been changed and updated to progresively
> incorporate string as preferred to char*. These new functions do not
> break backwards compatibility, so I see no reason to not include it.
>
> > ,Chad
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bug-commoncpp mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-commoncpp
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-commoncpp mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-commoncpp