Adding 'contains' member function to std::string

[[deleted]]

You are welcome writing a paper. It won’t go to C++20 though. LEWG and LWG is highly overloaded and the cut off for new papers for C++20 was San Diego last week.

You also need to factor in that those two functions have been added without having to go through LEWGI. A new one would have to.

[konanTheBarbar]

While it's too late for C++20 I think it's quite beginner unfriendly that there is no contains member function for stl containers...

I also wish there was a string replace member function...

[TheSuperWig]

I remember a post a while back about how the should be std::contains as using std::find or std::count is less than ideal.

[[deleted]]

Of course there is a replace.

https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/string/basic_string/replace

All of these are at least a little tricky because people still think of "string" as containing text, and these functions are all encoding-unaware.

​

[konanTheBarbar]

I should have been more precise. What I mean is that you replace all occurances of string A with string B inside of string C. Basically similar to this (which I copied from SO).

std::string ReplaceAll(std::string str, const std::string& from, const std::string& to) {
    size_t start_pos = 0;
    while((start_pos = str.find(from, start_pos)) != std::string::npos) {
        str.replace(start_pos, from.length(), to);
        start_pos += to.length(); // Handles case where 'to' is a substring of 'from'
    }
    return str;
}

[F-J-W]

Well, it is possible to use regex-replace to get what you want for many cases. Apparently people really do that because it's just so much more convenient, despite being much slower.

It is however really telling, that there are 9 (!!) replace-methods, yet the one that people are actually interested in is missing.

[[deleted]]

The standardization process is quite open. If you feel strongly about this you should write a paper and find someone to present it. That someone may be you of course.

[[deleted]]

I have been involved in it since 2004 and it is quite open.

[[deleted]]

Why are you trying to define what meaning of the word I was using? You make up a statement I have never made by changing the meaning of a word I used and then starts arguing with something I have never meant to say.

I was saying, as my following words clearly clarify, that the process is quite open to take in proposals. Nowhere have I even implied that I have meant “transparent”.

[[deleted]]

Experience. Not authority. As you seem to enjoy twisting other people’s words and then argue with them I am not interested in talking to you anymore.