Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] unicode tools and an unicode string type
From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-30 09:16:51
Beman Dawes wrote:
> While this is an interesting proposal, it appears to me to be several
> years worth of work. How would you structure the first summer's work?
> Would you aim at breadth (a prototype covering the whole) or depth
> (production quality work that concentrates on one aspect)?
As there have been multiple attempts at a boost.unicode library in the
past, and they all failed (at least in the sense that they didn't result
in any usable unicode library as part of boost), I would like to see any
further attempts at this to learn from this experience. To me, it
suggests that a more incremental approach is needed, where the focus is
on small self-contained chunks of functionality that can be reviewed and
integrated into boost quickly. (Obviously it's also important to keep
the big picture in mind, but aiming too high is a clear recipe for failure.)
(One aspect of this is that it may be important to recognize that the
API won't necessarily be 'right' in the first iteration. Having to aim
for the ultimate (generic) unicode API upfront (knowing that any future
API changes will meet heavy resistance) may actually hinder progress.)
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk