a new string class

[sargon94]

Hey, this is just a question: Would it be useful to have a new string class ended by the new line \n character?

[Athar]

Not really. If you want to make sure a string can contain no more than one line, you can still use std::string and have it hold no more than one line.

[sargon94]

No, I mean a manipulatable string that goes on until you hit enter. spaces are included when you cout<<

[Athar]

Perhaps you're looking for getline instead of a new string class?

http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/string/getline/

[sargon94]

in a way, but getline isn't the default application of strings usually cin>> is. I want to , and am making a string class that goes right up until newline is reached. also it will be smaller (sizeof wise) than string.

[MottMan]

Doesn't getline do that?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

#include <iostream> #include <string> int main() { std::string line; std::cout << "Please type a string of characters or words followed by ENTER\n> "; std::getline(std::cin, line); std::cout << "\n"; std::cout << line; return 0; }

Please type a string of characters or words followed by ENTER > This works properly. I swear! This works properly. I swear!

As for making it smaller, that would cool but isn't only 4 bytes?

[sargon94]

I'm not arguing that getline () doesn't do it. im saying cin>> does not. with mine cin>> would. and yes it is only 4 bytes. mine would be 2. also I want to add things like the divide operator. you divide the string by another and it would take all the letters in string 2 and get them out of string 1

[MottMan]

I would personally keep the same string class (as the size is not really a problem) but a library of functions to modify strings in different ways would be neat.

[filipe]

sargon94 wrote:

also I want to add things like the divide operator. you divide the string by another and it would take all the letters in string 2 and get them out of string 1

You know, when people complain about operator overloading in C++ that's exactly what they have in mind. Why not just have a properly named member function?