[boost] Re: [Unicode strings] We're off

From: Miro Jurisic (macdev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-18 15:17:24

In article <423B2D40.3060105_at_[hidden]>,
 Felipe Magno de Almeida <felipe.almeida_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> > 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 ?
> 
> reference counting optimization and maybe others, where there is.

Reference counting optimization is widely understood to be make performance of 
multi-threaded code worse than some other implementations of basic_string. Can 
name some other reason why basic_string would be a good rep for Unicode strings? 
I can't think of any.

meeroh