From: Vicram Rajagopalan (vicramrajagopalan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-09-17 04:10:18
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:57 AM Rainer Deyke via Boost
> I would not use it because I do not use Boost Program Options, and I do
> not expect a straight port to solve the problems I have with Boost
> Program Options.
My initial thinking was that to increase likelihood of adoption, it would
be a good idea to provide an interface that people are familiar with, but
it's true that the API has a lot of issues. This proposal may be a
non-starter, which is fine; I'm glad to get constructive feedback.
> 1. Unicode support is based on wchar_t instead of utf8. wchar_t has an
> implementation-defined width which makes it unsuitable for portable
> Unicode code. The correct way to handle Unicode in general is to use
> narrow strings encoded as utf-8. The correct way to handle Unicode on
> Unix systems is to accept narrow strings and to assume that they are in
> utf-8, regardless of locale. The correct way to handle Unicode on
> Windows is to accept wide strings and convert them to utf-8 immediately
> when received.
I'm not too familiar with dealing with non-ASCII character encodings
in argv. Is it portable to assume that the input is UTF-8, regardless of
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk