Re: [boost] [strings][unicode] Proposals for Improved String Interoperability in a Unicode World

Subject: Re: [boost] [strings][unicode] Proposals for Improved String Interoperability in a Unicode World
From: Olaf van der Spek (ml_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-31 09:13:11

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Mathias Gaunard
<mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 01/31/2012 09:57 AM, Daryle Walker wrote:
>
>> This probably isn't the right post to respond to, but I don't want to
>> spend forever figuring it out.
>>
>> Not every system is a 8/16/32(/64)-bit computer using ASCII/Latin-1/UTF-8.
>>  C++ (from C) was designed so a user with a 9/36/81-bit EBSDIC system and
>> one with a 8/16/32/64 UTF-16 system can write programs for the other (with
>> the appropriate cross-compiler).  We don't want to obnoxiously be prejudiced
>> against systems not matching the current configuration trends.
>
>
> Which is exactly why forcing a particular execution character set is a bad
> idea.
> Forcing a particular source character set, however, may be another matter,
> as it only affects the compiler itself.

Wouldn't it affect editors and other utilities too?

-- 
Olaf