|
Boost : |
From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-20 07:26:07
Peter Dimov wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> Eric Niebler wrote:
>>> No. "Normalization" doesn't always mean canonical decomposition.
>>> There are several canonical forms, some of which *require* the use of
>>> composite characters. In fact, the XML standard requires such a
>>> canonical form. A Unicode library cannot hide the issue of
>>> canonicalization from the user, because users will care which
>>> canonical form is being used.
>>
>> Why? If I want to compare two string, I don't really care which
>> normalized form is used.
>
> But if you need a particular normalized form for other purposes (to store
> it into a database, perhaps), you have no way to obtain it from
> operator==.
Yes. But it's possible to have standalone "normalization" function, and
still use default normalized representation for the string class.
- Volodya
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk