From: Hubert Figuiere (hfiguiere_at_teaser.fr)
Date: Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:49:44 EST
On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 15:01, msevior_at_physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
> Actually the class UT_String is would be the correct way to hold this. We
> would want some silly utf8 encoding to change the properties of the
> string.
No.
UT_UTF8String class is compatible with UT_String as long as we stick to
ASCII. This is an UTF-8 design. I don't see any reason to keep UT_String
alive.
I can add a method UT_UTF8String::c_str() for compatibility if you
really want (but I'd rather fix the code myself instead)
>
> Maybe we should just change the name of UT_String to UT_ConstChar or
> something.
No. This is not a matter of mutability but of storage. UT_String and
non-ASCII have lead to MANY serious bugs, including bugs that lead to
unreadable files. It is not acceptable in the 21st century to not be
able to handle non-ASCII.
Even hash keys can be set to UTF-8 :-)
Hub
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Mar 17 2004 - 18:51:57 EST