This requires some adjustment to Equals(). Previously, when you wrote:
fooString.Equals(barString + bazString)
you'd get a tuple for the operator+, which implicitly converts to nsTSubstring, which resolves into nsTSubstring::Equals(const nsTSubstring&).
Now that Equals has moved one level up:
nsTStringRepr::Equals(const nsTStringRepr&)
The compiler can't make the double-leap from nsTSubstringTuple -> nsTSubstring -> nsTStringRepr.
So I implemented this manually.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 5x8XhndOToJ
In the next patch, tuples will work on nsTStringRepr rather than nsTSubstring, so the notions of TO_SUBSTRING and substring_type are not quite right.
MozReview-Commit-ID: LpUwmGQAWVO
This requires some adjustment to Equals(). Previously, when you wrote:
fooString.Equals(barString + bazString)
you'd get a tuple for the operator+, which implicitly converts to nsTSubstring, which resolves into nsTSubstring::Equals(const nsTSubstring&).
Now that Equals has moved one level up:
nsTStringRepr::Equals(const nsTStringRepr&)
The compiler can't make the double-leap from nsTSubstringTuple -> nsTSubstring -> nsTStringRepr.
So I implemented this manually.
MozReview-Commit-ID: 5x8XhndOToJ
In the next patch, tuples will work on nsTStringRepr rather than nsTSubstring, so the notions of TO_SUBSTRING and substring_type are not quite right.
MozReview-Commit-ID: LpUwmGQAWVO