Re: [boost] [gsoc] Request Feedback for Boost.Ustr Unicode String Adapter

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] Request Feedback for Boost.Ustr Unicode String Adapter
From: Yakov Galka (ybungalobill_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-12 05:30:42

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:58, Daniel James <dnljms_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 11 August 2011 13:12, Yakov Galka <ybungalobill_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 14:41, Daniel James <dnljms_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Even if there was a consensus within boost, that isn't feasible. We
> >> don't own std::string, so we don't have a say in what it represents.
> >
> > Of course it's feasible. We have the right to say what it represents in
> the
> > interface of *our* libraries.
>
> Not really, boost is intended to be interoperable with the C++
> standard library. That limits us to following its conventions and
> policies.
>

The standard library doesn't have any conventions. As a result, even in
C++11 you cannot open a unicode filename in a portable way, even among
systems that do support unicode. Boost's role is to provide us the tools to
do things in a portable manner, to *hide* the differences between the
platforms. The best way to accomplish this is to standardize things.

>
> > If Boost.ProgramOptions, Boost.Locale and
> > Sqlite did it, surely we can adopt this policy to the rest of the
> libraries.
>
> According to its documentation, Program Options doesn't require UTF-8,
> it uses the standard locale facet.
>

Oops, you're right. My claim was based on
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_47_0/doc/html/program_options/design.html,
which happens to be a LIE.

[...]
>
> As far as I can tell sqlite doesn't use std::string, so I'm not sure
> why it's relevant. Regardless of that, it doesn't have the same
> requirements as us.
>

We are talking here not just about std::string but about any 'sequences of
chars'. sqlite accepts UTF-8 filenames on *windows*! I'm not sure about what
requirements are you talking. boost is a library after all, just as sqlite
is.

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:57, Daniel James <dnljms_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 11 August 2011 12:57, Artyom Beilis <artyomtnk_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >> There's a lot of existing code which is not based on that assumption -
> >> we can't just wish it out of existence and boost should be compatible
> >> with it.
> >
> > Then cross platform, Unicode aware programming will always
> > (I'm sorry) suck with Boost :-)
> >
> >
> > Thats it...
>
> Unless a different solution can be found.
>

Exactly. We are proposing a solution that have already been proven to work,
You're resisting the change and prefer to be stuck with the status quo that,
as we see, does not solve the problem.

-- 
Yakov