From: Stefan Seefeld (sseefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-19 12:04:36
> From: Robert Ramey [mailto:ramey_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: October 19, 2004 12:19
> So I always presumed that there was a "unicode" locale that
> implemented this
> as well all other required information. Now that I think
> about it I realize
> that it was only a presumption that I never really checked.
> Now I wonder
> what facitlities do most libraries do provide for unicode
> facets. I know
> there are ansi functions for translating between multi-byte and wide
> character strings. I've used these functions and they did
> what I expected
> them to do. I presumed they worked in accordance with the currently
> selected locale and its related facets. If the
> basic_string<wchar_t>::operator<(...) isn't doing "the right
> thing" wouldn't
> it be just a bug in the implementation of the standard
> library rather than a
> candidate for a boost library?
The unicode standard is rather young, compared to the C++ standard library.
It seems the original authors of std::locale and std::basic_string just
prepared for some expected flexibility. That doesn't mean all the
of today's unicode could fit into that. Just look at the size requirements
alone compared to 'wchar_t'...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk