From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-22 11:24:56
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Erik Wien" <wien_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> "Miro Jurisic" <macdev_at_[hidden]> wrote in message news:macdev-
>>> I am not sure I buy this. I think that if you want to have
>>> unchecked Unicode data, you should use a vector<char*_t>. Unicode
>>> strings have well-defined invariants with respect to
>>> canonicalization and well-formedness, and I think that the a
>>> Unicode string abstraction should enforce those invariants.
>>> Having intermediate states that are invalid and a final state that
>>> is valid is not a feature, it's a bug. It's a silent failure that I
>>> want to know about.
>> Amen. ;)
> How is this different from the situation with filesystem::path, where
> eager checking has turned out to be painful for a broad spectrum of
"We have a valid Unicode string" is a pretty sensible invariant.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk