From: Rogier van Dalen (rogiervd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-23 06:40:13
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:56:55 +0100, John Maddock <john_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > No, rather than the error check was on by default. Some people want it off
> > as the default.
> > As far as Unicode strings are concerned, the question is a little
> > different. Is it well defined behavior to create a string that does not
> > meet the Unicode invariants? If so, can ordinary operations break
> > invariants, or is such dangerous activity restricted to "experts only"
> > functions?
> For what it's worth: the Unicode standard *requires* conforming
> implementations to neither accept nor generate ill-formed Unicode sequences.
> Ref: Unicode Chapter3 C12 and C12a.
It does explicitly allow processing ill-formed sequences, or, at
least, "talk[ing] about" concatenating two ill-formed code unit
sequences to form a valid one, though. (Ch. 3, D30e.)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk