Difference between revisions of "Talk:cpp/string/basic string view"
From cppreference.com
< Talk:cpp
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
-There is an example at the bottom of the page that talks about not using a string literal with a s suffix. It's good advice, but it took me significant googling to figure out why. Do you think that it makes sense to be more explicit here?- | -There is an example at the bottom of the page that talks about not using a string literal with a s suffix. It's good advice, but it took me significant googling to figure out why. Do you think that it makes sense to be more explicit here?- | ||
| − | Update: It would appear that the suffixed example is not even valid. Can someone correct me? | + | Update: It would appear that the suffixed example is not even valid. Can someone correct me? Help [[User:Cubbi]] |
[[User:Hawkinsw|Hawkinsw]] ([[User talk:Hawkinsw|talk]]) 21:07, 19 August 2021 (PDT) | [[User:Hawkinsw|Hawkinsw]] ([[User talk:Hawkinsw|talk]]) 21:07, 19 August 2021 (PDT) | ||
Revision as of 20:26, 19 August 2021
The term "definition" in the initial table seems misplaced.
- it is trying to say the type A is defined as B. This appears in quite a few pages on the wiki. What would be a better heading, "Alias for"? "Defined as?" --Cubbi (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2017 (PDT)
What about the constructors?
There is no section describing the constructors for string_view. This is a major omission. --Phalpern (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2021 (PST)
Ah, never mind, I see it now. I've added a heading to make them easier to find. --Phalpern (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2021 (PST)
Better Description of Why ""s Causes Dangling
-There is an example at the bottom of the page that talks about not using a string literal with a s suffix. It's good advice, but it took me significant googling to figure out why. Do you think that it makes sense to be more explicit here?-
Update: It would appear that the suffixed example is not even valid. Can someone correct me? Help User:Cubbi
