From: Miro Jurisic (macdev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-18 13:16:24
In article <b3f2685905031806482a425a55_at_[hidden]>,
Sundell Software <sundell.software_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Looking at the code, it seems to duplicate alot of what basic_string
> does. AFAIK, though i haven't looked that close at unicode, you have
> two ways of viewing the string. As a string of UTF-* elements(?) and
> the other as a string of characters. The former has the same
> properties as basic_string, the latter doesn't.
> It seems to me then, that a possible design would be to make it a
> basic_string and provide special iterators etc that views the string
> as characters. This would require the iterator to have a reference to
> the basic_string to be able to support assignment. Maybe it would
> require whole wrapper class around basic_string to provide the
> required functionality.
I believe that the question of why basic_string is not a suitable Unicode
abstraction has been answered adequately in this thread, but to summarize:
numerous basic_string methods would allow the client to violate invariants set
by the Unicode standard.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk