I mean, given what is intended in the examples is a string, obviously you should use an actual string. But if you want an array, you should be able to use an array for that, and it's silly that instead you're asked to use a substitute.
(1) https://github.com/microsoft/STL/blob/62137922ab168f8e23ec1a...
But on the other hand, I already am splitting hairs. C++ comes with actual arrays, which lack bells and whistles, adding the bells and whistles to a class named "array" in the STL instead does not add them to actual arrays. If it did that would be a fine fix, but it doesn't.
Rust users who've told the compiler that their function wants, for example, an array of 26 chars can cheerfully assume in the function that the array has 26 chars in it. The compiler won't let anybody call that function with anything else so it'll be fine. It can make sense to do that, although perhaps not with exactly 26 chars.
C++ users can write a pretty similar looking function signature, including that size constraint - but, a C++ compiler just ignores the integer 26 and silently gives them a pointer to what may or may not be some number of chars, even though that's clearly not what the author intended. They need to write something quite different if they want the compiler to look after this constraint, and if they knew to do that they wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
