Very strange. You mention your library as possibly being more complete but then you tout someone else's. OK, I will study Artyom's Boost.Locale instead.
My library is more powerful in a way, but is also less polished and feature-complete. They also have completely different approaches in their interface, as my library is made
to be locale-agnostic and Artyom's chooses to make use of the standard C++ locale subsystem as much as possible, even though it is inherently broken for Unicode.
Few notes, std::locale is not "inherently broken" it has a great way to do things, just some things a generally done in imperfect way, the great thing about std::locale that it is extensible which allows to to fix some issues and use it very well. BTW there are still things that even "broken" std::locale does well, for example collation (at least under Linux) works quite fine.
My library is a generic implementation of Unicode, while Boost.Locale is mostly a wrapper on top of ICU, IBM's Unicode library.
Yes and not, it is not wrapper of ICU, but ICU is central part, you can use many Unicode/Localization providers even standard library and in many cases it works very well. But ICU gives very good and high quality features that standard libraries do not. Artyom