The class Literal is used as a thin wrapper to mark the fact that
some string parameter or value is assumed to be given *literally*
For the contract this indicates
- that storage is somewhere
- storage is not owned and managed by Literal
- yet storage guaranteed to exist during the whole lifetime of the program
- Literal can not be altered
- Literal is transparently convertible to const char *
Currently I am in the course of building some path abstraction, and for that
task it makes sense to hold an array of Literals (instead of pointers), just
because it expresses the intent way more clear. I do not see anything in the
above mentioned contract to prohibit a default constructed Literal, with the
empty string being the most obvious choice.
Note: there is the class Symbol, which derives from Literal. Symbol takes
arbitrary strings, but *interns* them into a static symbol table.
this might turn into lock contention problem, but better optimise
a correct implementation than fix a fast yet broken one.
Hint: SessionCommandFunction_test demonstrates that the
symbol table can be corrupted by creating Symbol instances
in parallel without proper locking. So yes, this is for real.
