RE: [libxml++] templates v. library

[Murray Cumming Comneon com]

> Murray Cumming wrote:
> > I was wondering, if we decide that it makes sense for libxml++ to 
> > become a set of templates in headers instead of a library, 
> in order to 
> > allow a choice of string classes, why doesn't the same 
> argument apply 
> > to all other libraries, such as gtkmm? Is it just that libxml++ is 
> > smaller? If so, does anyone advocate that all small C++ libraries 
> > should actually be templates, given that almost all C++ 
> libraries will 
> > tend to need a utf8 string class? I don't mean to sound rude - I'm 
> > just trying to be logical.
> 
> all C++ libraries tend to need utf8 ? I can't second that.

"almost all". Probably all which involve user input our output of text 
at some stage and which expect to be used internationally. This is a
hypothesis.

Murray Cumming
murrayc usa net
www.murrayc.com