On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 15:29:05 +0000 Alexander Lamaison <awl03@doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:51:12 -0500, Chad Nelson wrote:
In that case, what would people say to not having any conversion code in the Unicode strings stuff at all (other than between the different UTF-* codings, and maybe to and from ASCII for convenience), and relying on Boost.Locale for that? Then the trade-offs are up to the developer using each.
I don't think the string classes should implement _any_ of the conversions themselves but should delegate them all to Boost.Locale. However, they should look like they're doing the conversions by hiding the Boost.Locale aspect from the caller as much as possible.
Why delegate them to another library? Those classes already have efficient, flexible, and correct iterator-based template code for the conversions between the UTF-* types. I'd rather just farm out the stuff that those types are weak at, like converting to and from system-specific locales. -- Chad Nelson Oak Circle Software, Inc. * * *