Subject: Re: [boost] [string] proposal
From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-24 23:27:02
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Chad Nelson
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:28:50 +0800
> Dean Michael Berris <mikhailberis_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Patrick Horgan <phorgan1_at_[hidden]>
>>> [...] I'm with you here, but to be fair to Chad, you could add to
>>> that list a string of utf-8 encoded characters. Â If a string contains
>>> things with a particular encoding Â there's value in being able to
>>> keep track of whether it's validly encoded. Â It may very well be
>>> that a std::string is part of another type, or that there's some
>>> encoding wrapper that lets you see it as utf-8 in the same way an
>>> external iterator lets you look at chars.
>> Sure, however I personally don't see the value of making the encoding
>> an intrinsic property of a string object. [...]
> Then I think we have different purposes, and I'll absent myself from
> this part of the discussion after this reply.
I don't think we have different purposes, I just think we're
discussing two different levels.
I for one want a string that is efficient and lightweight to use.
Whether it encodes the data underneath as UTF-32 for convenience is
largely of little consequence to me at that level. However, as I have
already described elsewhere on a different message, "viewing" a string
in a given encoding is much more scalable as far as design is
concerned as it allows others to extend the view mechanism to be
unique to the encoding being supported.
This allows you to write algorithms and views that adapt existing
strings (std::string, QString, CString, std::wstring, <insert string
implementation here>) and operate on them in a generic manner. The
hypothetical `boost::string` can have implicit conversion constructors
(?) that deal with the supported strings, and that means you are able
to view that `boost::string` instead in the view.
> Before I go, I'll note in passing that I've started on the
> modifications to the UTF types, and I found that it made sense to omit
> many of the mutating functions from utf8_t and utf16_t, at least the
> ones that operate on anything other than the end of the string.
Actually, I think if you have the immutable string as something you
use internally in your UTF-* "views", then you may even be able to
omit even the mutation parts even those dealing with the end of the
>>> Are you saying that you try it as utf-8, it doesn't decode and then
>>> you try utf-32 to see if it works? Â Cause the same string couldn't
>>> be both. Â Or are you saying that the string has some underlying
>>> encoding but something lets it be viewed in other encodings, for
>>> example it might actually be EUC, but external iterators let you
>>> view it as utf-8 or utf-16 or utf-32 interpreting on the fly?
>> I'm saying the string could contain whatever it contains (which is
>> largely of little consequence) but that you can give a "view" of the
>> string as UTF-8 if it's valid UTF-8, or UTF-32 if it's valid UTF-32.
> For what it's worth, that's the basic concept that I've adopted for the
> utf*_t modifications. The utf*_t gives only a code-point iterator (you
> can also get a char/char16_t/char32_t iterator from the type returned
> by the encoded() function). I plan to write a separate character
> iterator that will accept code-points and return actual Unicode
I do suggest however that you implement/design algorithms first and
build your iterators around the algorithms.
I know that might sound counter-intuitive but having concrete
algorithms in mind will allow you to delineate the proper (or more
effective) abstractions better than thinking of the iterators in
-- Dean Michael Berris about.me/deanberris
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk