From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-14 02:42:02
Daryle Walker wrote:
> >> Not personally, but that's about as relevant as asking for a platform
> >> whose "char" isn't 8 bits. (I've heard platforms like that have
> >> existed.)
> > I know one such platform which exists today, with 32-bit char. However,
> > it (1) still uses ascii
> > (2) you won't run string algrotithms on a DSP anyway
> I meant something like a 9-bit EBCDIC "char" on an older computer. (I made
> that up; I don't know if that case has really occurred.)
Ok, though EBCDIC is quite ancient anyway.
> > Yes, implementation is allowed to use randomly-permuted ascii encoding.
> > The point is that *if* user of such implementation really starts using
> > program_options, it would be possible to accomodate that.
> I'd rather not have an indefinitely-ticking portability time bomb left in
> the code.
In fact, that's not going to be a time-bomb. I expect anyone who's going to
use the library to run tests or to look at tests results, and even trivial
Unicode test will catch problems on EBCDIC.
What I don't want is spend time to accomodate systems:
1. Which might not exist anyone
2. Which might not have any user base
3. Which might not have good enough C++ compiler
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk