On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 11:44:03 +0100 Mathias Gaunard <mathias.gaunard@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
On 11/02/2011 01:52, Chad Nelson wrote:
It has constant-time distance, which isn't very useful and adds unnecessary overhead to your iterator.
I disagree. I find it extremely useful to have a true random access iterator for some strings (most, in UTF-16, and arguably most in many cases of UTF-8 too), and an emulated one for the rest. And for that, the overhead isn't unnecessary.
constant-time distance does not give you random access, so I don't know where you're going at.
You couldn't have missed the "special case" code in the iterators, which provides true random access if the string contains no multi-element-encoded code-points (which is usually the case for UTF-16, and often for UTF-8), because you criticized that in an earlier message. So I have to assume that you aren't attempting to provide honest feedback, and that your motivation is simply to attack the library. Why? Hm, you're developing a Boost.Unicode proposal yourself, aren't you? Competition is such an inconvenient thing. Don't bother responding, I will not waste my time with you any further. -- Chad Nelson Oak Circle Software, Inc. * * *