Subject: Re: [boost] [string] proposal
From: Patrick Horgan (phorgan1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-27 02:19:30
On 01/26/2011 07:54 PM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> ... elision by patrick ...
> Yes, but really I think the view<encoding> is the encoding-aware
> string type mostly because if you convert it to an std::string for
> example or into a buffer and look at it like a `char const *` or even
> `wchar_t const *` then you basically get what you'd need for the C or
> OS APIs.
> I just prefer calling a spade a spade and not say `string` when I
> really mean a `view<encoding>` -- because largely I think everyone
> would agree that the string data structure really doesn't have an
> intrinsic property that relates to an 'encoding'.
But what some are talking about is a utf-8_string. I know it's not what
you're talking about, but saying that everyone would agree would be a
bit disingenuous and discount much of the preceding discussion.
I really wish this discussion would split into two, because the
discussion about the benefits of an immutable string, and the
discussions of an utf encoded string are two completely different
discussions and you keep butting heads each saying, no, but that's not
what I'm talking about.
That's right. There were several threads, but everyone's jumped onto
this one which I believe was started by Mr. Berris to talk about the
benefits of an immutable string. Please, please, separate these threads
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk