Subject: Re: [boost] UTF strings thread (was [string] proposal)
From: Chad Nelson (chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-27 13:19:04
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 13:04:45 -0500
David Bergman <David.Bergman_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>>> That's short, but not descriptive. The "i" prefix is more
>>> suggestive of "interface" than "immutable" to me. Why not just go
>>> whole hog and call it "immutable_string" as Artyom suggested?
>> The only objection really is that it's too long. :D Less characters
>> is better.
>> /me gets a thesaurus and looks up string :D
> Ok, but why this focus on immutability? Is that not a quite orthogonal
> concern to the encoding problematics discussed here (as well...)?
> I would prefer to have this discussion be about the encoding aspect(s)
> rather than immutability [...]
That's my baby, which I'm still working on. Dean is working on the
immutable string idea (which he's made a persuasive case for IMO, but
which is really unrelated). As has been noted, the two are getting
confused because they both came out of Artyom's original UTF-8
proposal; I've changed the subject line on this one to (hopefully)
split the two discussions up.
-- Chad Nelson Oak Circle Software, Inc. * * *
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk