Re: [boost] [string] Realistic API proposal

Subject: Re: [boost] [string] Realistic API proposal
From: Patrick Horgan (phorgan1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-30 02:20:07

On 01/29/2011 10:56 AM, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
> On 29/01/2011 05:12, Joe Mucchiello wrote:
>> ... elision by patrick ...
>> This, and many of these functions, work much better as standalone 
>> functions:
>>
>> // with a string-aware function
>>     socket.read(my_string);
>>     if (!is_valid_utf8(my_string.begin(),my_string.end())) ....
>
> or if(!is_valid_utf8(my_string))

I still like the idea of a utf-8_string that enforces correct encoding, 
i.e. it won't let you make a change to the string that would make the 
above external function is_valid_utf8 return false.  Then of course you 
wouldn't need that function.

And please don't object by saying it would be better to have a different 
type of string without the internal checks.  I get what you're saying.  
I want both at different times.  But I do want this.  Always knowing 
that the string represented valid utf-8 would remove the burden of 
checking that everywhere that wanted a valid utf-8 encoded string.

Patrick