From: Steve Summit (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Sep 22 2006 - 14:02:17 CDT
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> From: "Mike" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> This is probably not the forum for language wars. However, I will
>> defend C++ as a viable language for Unicode programming. I have
>> written a library that performs all four forms of normalization,
>> upper/lowercase conversions, collation using the default Unicode
>> collation element table (no tailoring just yet), and conversion
>> between the various UTF's and Windows' little-endian UTF-16.
>> Internally I use an unsigned int to hold code points, avoiding the
>> uncertainty of wchar_t.
> "unsigned int" is not the adequate datatype (wrong semantics,
> unspecified range, unspecified size, especially vectors if code units,
> inadequate with the native string constants datatype, ...
"People who believe a thing to be impossible should not stand
in the way of those who are doing it."
Other than the (granted) incompatibility with string constants,
the rest of Philippe's assertions about unsigned int's alleged
unsuitability for manipulating Unicode characters in the BMP are
incorrect, but I'll spare the list a point-by-point rebuttal.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 22 2006 - 14:05:57 CDT