On Sun, 2003-02-23 at 01:59, Murray Cumming wrote: > On Sun, 2003-02-23 at 03:31, Stefan Seefeld wrote: > > > > I hope this clarifies my suggestion a bit. > > Yes, we should consider it. So far I can think of these 2 disadvantages: > - All implementation is via templates in headers - so we can't fix it > just by installing a new version - applications must be recompiled. And how is that any different than what you're doing now? Your current paint-yourself-into-a-corner implementation doesn't allow any wholesale switching of Unicode libraries through either compile-time options or run-time binding. In contrast, Stefan's idea provides compile-time switching. And its sooo easy to implement. > - The API would be less clear (But, it works for std::string) Hardly. This is exactly what the standard library does for string--they template based on the type. And since libxml++ is, after all, a C++ project then why restrict yourself to some half-assed subset of C++ syntax just because you, Murray, haven't taken the time to familiarize yourself with it. I realize that I'm "just another observer" here but its still sad to watch as Stefan keeps trying to move this little project in a better direction only to receive constant abuse from Murray in the form of irrelevant (the mostly-OT discussion of Qt strings above was deleted from this email) and/or moronic responses like the ones above. Libxml++ could become a nice, clean alternative to Xerces-C++ but until more of Stefan's ideas get implemented I'm afraid projects should prefer the latter. Or just deal with the C API of libxml2. Ed -- Edward H. Hill III, PhD Post-Doctoral Researcher | Email: ed eh3 com, ehill mines edu Division of ESE | URLs: http://www.eh3.com Colorado School of Mines | http://cesep.mines.edu/people/hill.htm Golden, CO 80401 | Phones: 303-384-2094, 303-273-3483
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part