From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-18 13:42:30
Sundell Software wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:16:24 -0500, Miro Jurisic <macdev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>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.
> The client would not be using the basic_string directly to manipulate
> the unicode character string, although he would have access to the
> basic_string. If the client chooses to shoot themselves in the foot,
> they can. But any operation on the string as a string of characters
> would be done through another interface.
So what's the advantage of using std::basic_string over, say, std::vector ?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk