Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | That's exactly what this means but, sure, that is just my opinion.
| > You
| > | obviously are in love with your vector solution ;-)
| > If the only semantics are "bunch of bytes" etc. then a vector is
| > correct.
|
| Sure but in this case the end-result is a lot of copied data and a lot
| of conversion from/to docstring that could be saved. When the time
| comes to optimisation, you will see what I mean.
I'll call you on that. You will realize that you are mistaken.
We'll see then ;-)
| > For passing ucs-4 strings around we already have docstring.
|
| I know it's a bit late to voice my opinion but I think it should have been:
Yes. I have been calling on help on the unicode branch for months...
I am trying to help now...
And a number of people said that they will help when it is in trunk. See
now how it is easy to get help?
| typedef std::basic_string<unsigned short> ucs2_string;
| typedef std::basic_string<boost::uint32_t> ucs4_string;
|
| And a compile time dependant
|
| #ifdef USE_UCS2
| typedef ucs2_string docstring
| #else
| typedef ucs4_string docstring
| #endif
No.
We are not using UCS2 internally.
OK boss.
and docstring is not a real ucs4 string... you cannot do fun stuff
with it since we have a limited char_trait.
A char_trait that we could extend, couldn't we?
So imho if docstring should change to anything as of now it is a
std::vector<boost::uint32_t>
Your call...
Abdel.
