Not seeing a reason in this response for basic_${foo}, implying the existence of a ${not_so_basic}_string as was the original question. Sure typedef a template instantiation to get around language syntax awkwardness, that's fine. Why basic_string? why basic_fixed_string? Or is this just a curveball and it would have been better as
typedef _string<char> string etc
Or maybe not, I don't know what they had in mind, which is why I'm asking...
typedef _string<char> string etc
Or maybe not, I don't know what they had in mind, which is why I'm asking...