Subject: Re: [boost] [string] proposal
From: David Bergman (David.Bergman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-23 22:51:20
On Jan 23, 2011, at 9:34 PM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Chad Nelson
> <chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 01:56:36 +0800
>> Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>>> I think strings are different from the encoding they're interpreted
>>>>> as. Let's fix the problem of a string data structure first then tack
>>>>> on encoding/decoding as something that depends on the string
>>>>> abstraction first.
>>>> That gets back to the problem that I was originally trying to solve
>>>> with the UTF types: that a string needs a way to carry around its
>>>> encoding. A UTF-8 type could be built on such a thing very easily.
>>> Hmm... I OTOH don't think the encoding should be part of the string.
>>> The encoding is really external to the string, more like a function
>>> that is applied to the string.
>> It's a property of the string. It may change, but some encoding (even
>> if it's just "none") should be associated with a particular string
>> throughout its existence. Otherwise you might as well use the existing
> I think I disagree with this. A string is by definition a sequence of
> something -- a string of integers, a string of events, a string of
> characters. Encoding is not an intrinsic property of a string.
Ok... it feels like you are changing the rules as we play, instead of admitting "defeat" ;-)
Or, did you indeed talk about *generic sequences* this whole time? If so, why the focus on encoding strategies for characters?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk