wstring: remove wstring version of SplitString

wstring: remove wstring version of SplitString

Retry of r84336.

BUG=23581
Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=84355

[Evan Martin, 2011-05-05 20:52:24]

http://codereview.chromium.org/6930047/diff/8/base/string_split_unittest.cc
File base/string_split_unittest.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6930047/diff/8/base/string_split_unittest.cc#n...
base/string_split_unittest.cc:15: namespace {
Not sure about this; I think the test had the above namespace so it didn't need
to qualify everything.  It might make sense to do "using namespace base" and
then remove the above namespace block.

[brettw, 2011-05-05 21:09:41]

LGTM

http://codereview.chromium.org/6930047/diff/8/base/string_split_unittest.cc
File base/string_split_unittest.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/6930047/diff/8/base/string_split_unittest.cc#n...
base/string_split_unittest.cc:15: namespace {
I normally put the tests in the base namespace since the're in the same
directory and conceptually belong to the same module.

[Evan Martin, 2011-05-05 21:13:37]

On 2011/05/05 21:09:41, brettw wrote:
http://codereview.chromium.org/6930047/diff/8/base/string_split_unittest.cc
> File base/string_split_unittest.cc (right):
> 
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/6930047/diff/8/base/string_split_unittest.cc#n...
> base/string_split_unittest.cc:15: namespace {
> I normally put the tests in the base namespace since the're in the same
> directory and conceptually belong to the same module.

What about this new file-scoped function I added?  I think I will put it in its
own anon namespace, is that ok?

[brettw, 2011-05-05 21:14:24]

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:13 PM,  <evan@chromium.org> wrote:
> On 2011/05/05 21:09:41, brettw wrote:
> http://codereview.chromium.org/6930047/diff/8/base/string_split_unittest.cc
>>
>> File base/string_split_unittest.cc (right):
>
>
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/6930047/diff/8/base/string_split_unittest.cc#n...
>>
>> base/string_split_unittest.cc:15: namespace {
>> I normally put the tests in the base namespace since the're in the same
>> directory and conceptually belong to the same module.
>
> What about this new file-scoped function I added?  I think I will put it in
> its
> own anon namespace, is that ok?

Sure, sounds good.

Brett