Boost logo

Boost Users :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-01 11:25:50

Vladimir Prus <ghost_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Russell Hind wrote:
>> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>> I have tried to explain this in great detail. Let me rephrase again:
>>> neither template not define is really attractive when used in a library
>>> interface.
>> Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't it be like std::string and
>> std::wstring?
> I think std::string and std::wstring have exactly the same drawbacks. On a
> library interface (when the library is compiled one, not-header only), you
> have to use either string of wstring. If there were single std::string
> which supported wide characters, there would be no choice, and most C++
> libraries were at last half-ready for Unicode.
> As an example, there are two environment with a single string type: Qt and
> Java, and in both there's no issue of Unicode any more, AFAICT.


Java "unicode" is utf-16, I think. Unicode now has at least 32 bits
per character, IIUC, so I don't think any simplistic interface choices
can make a non-issue of Unicode.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost-users list run by williamkempf at, kalb at, bjorn.karlsson at, gregod at, wekempf at