From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-16 09:01:17
At 12:43 AM 2/16/2004, Edward Diener wrote:
>I have never talked to a C++ standards committee, nor have claimed to. I
>converse with more than one committee member about this issue on
>comp.std.c++. If that is what your statement above is supposed to mean, I
>can assure you that the parallel universe is a real one and it is ours.
>Regarding the C++ standards committee not being in favor of wide
>filenames, I quote from your own FAQ on filesystem.
>"The C++ standards committee Library Working Group discussed this in some
>detail both on the committee's library reflector and at the Spring, 2002,
>meeting, and feels that (1) names based on types other than char are
>extremely non-portable, (2) there are no agreed upon semantics for
>conversion between wide-character and narrow-character names for file
>systems which do not support wide-character name, and (3) even the
>members most interested in wide-character names are unsure that they are
>good idea in the context of a portable library."
>I interpret this to mean ...
That's the problem. The wording was intended to convey that there is
considerable interest, but that there are unresolved technical issues.
Someday someone will come forward with an actual written proposal. Instead
of informal discussions, an actual vote will be taken. Then you will be
able to say the committee is or is not in favor of the proposal. But that
hasn't happened yet.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk