In article <086E419469537C439E250E428F0DF0930162A1@host.Sysdev.local>, "Graham" <Graham@system-development.co.uk> wrote:
1. Is this worth doing are enough people interested to make it worthwhile?
Yes. There has already been a lot of discussion of boost Unicode support on this list. You should read the archives before you continue with your proposal, because many of your questions are already discussed in the archives. Look for postings by Erik Wien, as he was the one driving the effort at that time.
2. Which would be the best implementation of basic_string to use?
This has been discussed at length in the archived threads. It is at best questionable to use basic_string for Unicode, and in my opinion it is almost certainly wrong.
3. Should unistring support equality due to the overhead in decomposition or should there be a decompunistring?
The question of whether Unicode APIs should present a normalized view to the client has also been touched upon. My opinion, probably stated in the archives, is that requiring the user of the API to know about decompositions before being able to correctly compare Unicode strings is unacceptable.
6. Any comments ?
I cannot stress this enough: please read the archives. I am sure that the enthusiasm for discussing various aspects of this design will be greatly diminished the second (or probably third, by now) time through. Ben -- I changed my name: <http://periodic-kingdom.org/People/NameChange.php>