Roguewave's RWCString vs string

I'm thinking about using Roguewave's RWCString
class instead of normal strings. Then I though
"Why?" and I started read the documentation,
but I couldn't find any info that would explain
exactly what are the main differences between
it and normal string?

Of course I can't remember every method normal
string class offers and comparing all of them would
to Roguewave's methods would be a little bit
too much work. Has anyone used this class
and what benefits it offers comparing to
normal string class?
tonitopAsked:
Who is Participating?
 
abesoftConnect With a Mentor Commented:
Two differences that I've noticed are substrings and regular expressions.  (I don't use std::string too often, so I'm not sure if somebody has implemented these as extensions to the library - I'm sure that they have....)

In std::string::substr( start, end) merely returns a copy of the string between those two positions.  In RWCSubString, you get a reference to the actual string that the substring is extracted from, so:
  RWCString s("What I tell you is true.");
  // Create a substring and use it as an lvalue:
  s(19, 0) = "three times ";
  cout << s << endl;
Program output:

What I tell you is three times true.

Which is kind of neat when you want to modify a portion of a string.

Also, regular expressions are great tools, although they do tend to be difficult to read and maintain, and most developers who use them quickly become addicted.  RW includes two subtly different regexp classes, but that's not really a concern right now.  As an example:  

  RWCString aString("Hark! Hark! the lark");
  // A regular expression matching any lowercase word or end of a  
  //word starting with "l":     RWCRExpr re("l[a-z]*");
  cout << aString(re) << endl;  // Prints "lark"

Both of these features are not strictly part of RWCString, but they do act on RWCStrings, so I consider the classes related.

Hope this helps.
0
 
jasonclarkeCommented:
Presumably you are talking about the std::string class.

I would think that one of the main reasons that there is RWCString and not just std::string is that RWCString has been around for most people for a lot longer.  RWCString was available long before std::string was,  I was using it at least 7 years ago.

For 'normal' string uses, I guess RWCString probably is similar.  I use std::strings now and don't find myself wishing for RWCString features.
0
 
TEFKASGCommented:
Are you using other RW classes?  If not, I would just use the std string and not bother with the rogue wave libraries.
  I haven't used RW strings in a while, but as jasonclarke said, using std::strings I don't miss the RW version.  Just my 2 cents worth.
0
Free Tool: Port Scanner

Check which ports are open to the outside world. Helps make sure that your firewall rules are working as intended.

One of a set of tools we are providing to everyone as a way of saying thank you for being a part of the community.

 
PacmanCommented:
Can't tell you the diffs because I only use RWCString.
But what I hate using RWCString is the following:

There's no type cast operator to (char*), only to (const char*).
So if you have a function which wants char* as a parameter (even if it doesn't write to this pointer) then you have to write such code:

RWCString myString = "hi folks!";

DoSomething( (char*)(const char*)myString );

This is ugly. Don't know if your other string class is better here ...

0
 
jasonclarkeCommented:
std::string doesn't cast to char * or const char* at all, you have to use the c_str() method, which returns a const char*.  (Can't remeber why now,  but I think, as with almost everything in STL there is a good reason for it).

You shouldn't complain about this behaviour in RW, it is the right thing to do.  Casting to char* is really quite bad because, as you say it would give the user the opportunity to stomp on RWs string buffer.  

Forcing you to do this kind of cast is a safety measure,  it highlights that what you are doing is dodgy and best avoided.



0
 
PacmanCommented:
I know it's right but I don't like it. I've never tried to write to a const char ... ;) ...
0
 
abesoftCommented:
A comment on RWCString casting... (Following Pacman's comments)

I prefer to change:
DoSomething( (char*)(const char*)myString );

to:

DoSomething( const_cast<char *>( myString.Data()));

or:

DoSomething( (char *) myString.Data());

Double casting seems a little too obscure.  The const_cast version nicely documents what you are doing, although it is a little wordy.  I usually use the last form.
0
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.