20 Oct
2004
20 Oct
'04
6:38 p.m.
Erik Wien wrote:
"Eric Niebler" <eric@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message
Such a one-size-fits-all unicode_string is guaranteed to be inefficient for some applications.
Yes... That's why I would like the encoding to be templated. Allowing the programmer to choose the encoding best suited for his/her needs.
It's good to have one string class for library interoperability reasons. Otherwise library A would demand utf8_string, library B would demand utf16_string, and library C would demand utf32_string. No matter which one you choose, you'll pay a price. (This doesn't change even if you spell utf8_string as string<utf8>.)