Re: [boost] Boost.Locale (was Re: [SQL-Connectivity] Is Boost interested in CppDB?)

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Locale (was Re: [SQL-Connectivity] Is Boost interested in CppDB?)
From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-12-15 07:34:03

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Mathias Gaunard
<mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 15/12/2010 01:44, Edward Diener wrote:
>>
>> Maybe the lack of interest is because this means little to me, and may
>> mean little to others. If you have a library you need to tell people how
>> to get it. I found a Soc 2009 home page and I still have no idea how one
>> is supposed to see what is there or how to get your library.
>
> There have been emails about it regularly on this mailing list for the past
> year and a half.
>
> Searching this list for Unicode should give you many hits.
> The docs are here, if that's what you're looking for:
> <http://mathias.gaunard.com/unicode/doc/html/>
>

This is just beautiful -- I think this is exactly what I need in
cpp-netlib! Will this be submitted to Boost for review soon, because I
really want to be able to deal with UTF-8 real soon now. :D

>
>> Very strange. You mention your library as possibly being more complete
>> but then you tout someone else's. OK, I will study Artyom's Boost.Locale
>> instead.
>
> My library is more powerful in a way, but is also less polished and
> feature-complete.

So, what are the features you'd like to implement so that us potential
users can be the judge of whether it's feature-complete enough?

> They also have completely different approaches in their interface, as my
> library is made to be locale-agnostic and Artyom's chooses to make use of
> the standard C++ locale subsystem as much as possible, even though it is
> inherently broken for Unicode.
>
> My library is a generic implementation of Unicode, while Boost.Locale is
> mostly a wrapper on top of ICU, IBM's Unicode library.
>
> They're quite different, and I like mine best of course, but I have to admit
> Boost.Locale is more ready for production than Boost.Unicode for the time
> being.
>

I think I like this approach better too to deal with unicode data in a
generic means. I like that it plays nicely with Boost.Range and
Boost.RangeEx which is definitely a good way to deal with strings and
text.

Of course this is just me.

I look forward to this library getting stable and usable soon --
definitely something sorely missing in Boost and in C++ in general.

-- 
Dean Michael Berris
deanberris.com