On 11/02/2011 15:00, Chad Nelson wrote:
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.
Well, I was being nice by giving you feedback because I have some experience in the field. I don't think you'd get much feedback otherwise, since you're just doing "yet another unicode/string library proposal", with no explanation nor docs at all (doxygen reference doesn't count as documentation, it's just a reference for the user, it doesn't explain the design of the library). But obviously you prefer to see a personal attack than to try to think about the potential design flaws that I noticed from a quick look at your library. I'm trying to help you there, or at least make you realize there are already several related efforts that could be better than yours on certain aspects. If you want to eventually be able to submit your library for review, it would be nice to know how it stands compared to other proposed approaches. Of course, mine is better, but that comes without saying ;).