Re: The need of Unicode types in C++0x
On Oct 2, 6:11 pm, Ioannis Vranos <ivra...@no.spam.nospamfreemail.gr>
wrote:
Yannick Tremblay wrote:
[...]
A "Unicode" locale makes no sense because the
locale represent much more than simply the character encoding that is
being used.
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr35/#Locale
True, but I think Unicode locales could be implemented for characters
only, leaving the rest unchanged (as they are).
For example:
locale::global(locale("english"));
wcin.imbue(locale("UTF16"));
wcout.imbue(locale("UTF16"));
would change only the character set, keeping the rest of the
locale settings as they are either they were previously
defined or they are the default ones.
That's not quite how locales work. What I think your talking
about is a UTF16 codecvt facet. And there are ways of
constructing a local by copying another locale, just replacing a
single facet. Of course, the ctype facet is also affected; part
of the problem in doing this cleanly is that abstractions that
we'd like to keep separate get mixed up. (Note that this can be
a problem even within a pure Unicode environment. Something
like toupper( 'i' ) is locale dependent, and will return a
different character in a Turkish locale.)
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S=E9mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'=C9cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34