Re: [boost] [regex] How robust are the <boost/regex/pending/unicode_iterator.hpp> adapters?

Subject: Re: [boost] [regex] How robust are the <boost/regex/pending/unicode_iterator.hpp> adapters?
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-18 13:21:17

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Artyom Beilis <artyomtnk_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
>> To: Boost Developers List <boost_at_[hidden]>
>> Sent: Mon, July 18, 2011 7:17:19 PM
>> Subject: [boost] [regex] How robust are the
>><boost/regex/pending/unicode_iterator.hpp> adapters?
>>
>> Boost.Filesystem needs the UTF-32 to UTF-16 and UTF-16 to UTF-32
>> adapters to  implement char16_t and char32_t support.
>
> UTF-16 to UTF-32 and backward is quite trivial and can
> be done in 10-20 rows of code. You can borrow some
> code from Boost.Locale it is really trivial.
>
> If you need I'll give you samples.
>
> Really, don't add dependency for this...

Adding a dependency on header-only code that has been stable for years
seems very low risk. Even if it is only a few lines of code, I'd have
to test it and maintain it, and I'd prefer not to have to do either.

>
>> Do they have any
>> known bugs or other  outstanding  problems?
>>
>
> I can tell you char16_t and char32_t are far-far-far-far from
> being useful especially if you want to use codecvt or something
> like that.

People have used uint16_t and uint32_t typedefs as workarounds for
years, and found that useful. So it doesn't matter all that much if
compilers or standard libraries don't yet support char16_t and
char32_t directly.

--Beman