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: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-31 15:33:39

On 01/31/2012 03:13 PM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> 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?

Not necessarily, a compiler can support multiple source character sets.