From: Erik Wien (wien_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-04 06:16:22
Daniel James wrote:
> But, whether you use std::string, std::vector, or
> manually manage memory, it should be an implementation detail.
Exactly. We will probably go for std::vector for now, but since it is an
implementation detail, changing this at a later time should not be a
problem. (As long as it is found worthy of the effort in terms of
efficiency that is)
> binary representation should probably be exposed by its iterators, not
> the std::string. i.e. instead of get_binary_layout(), have:
> binary_iterator binary_begin();
> binary_iterator binary_end();
> const_binary_iterator binary_begin() const;
> const_binary_iterator binary_end() const;
> Should you have non-const binary iterators? IMO, yes, anyone who uses
> them should know what they're letting themselves in for.
> Although, you might want to guarantee that the binary representation is
> in continuous memory, and isn't, say, a deque.
I have problems finding any reason why anyone would need to have access
to the binary representation. To me it seems anything lower level than
code points, would never be needed. Unless of course you are processing
Unicode encoding forms manually, but if you are doing that, why are you
using a unicode library anyway? A simple vector with code units would be
much more appropriate.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk