With my short education into Gtkmm recently, I have become acquainted with the Glib::ustring class. It is a clone of the std::string class, with the addition of supporting unicode in utf8 format. This sounds like it might be a nice replacement for our many
g_blah_blah_utf8()
calls, and also a nice storage for our internal strings. Anyone have any thoughts? Maybe Jon could look at it to see if it is sufficient/valid.
Just wondering.... (I'm sitting in a boring meeting right now ;-)
Bob
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 09:45, Bob Jamison wrote:
calls, and also a nice storage for our internal strings. Anyone have any thoughts? Maybe Jon could look at it to see if it is sufficient/valid.
I would personally strongly prefer Glib::ustring where it is feasible to do so. IIRC it also earned Jon's seal of approval (over std::string, which is rather broken in many respects) when we discussed it during our earlier C++ification work.
-mental
MenTaLguY wrote:
On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 09:45, Bob Jamison wrote:
calls, and also a nice storage for our internal strings. Anyone have any thoughts? Maybe Jon could look at it to see if it is sufficient/valid.
I would personally strongly prefer Glib::ustring where it is feasible to do so. IIRC it also earned Jon's seal of approval (over std::string, which is rather broken in many respects) when we discussed it during our earlier C++ification work.
Yes.
std::string is evil, broken, and useless.
Avoid at all costs.
:-)
Glib::ustring seems to do all that we need to (and most that I've done with other C++ string classes before). That and a few helper functions and things get much happier.
Remember!!! Byte does not always equal character, and vice-versa.
participants (3)
-
Bob Jamison -
Jon A. Cruz -
MenTaLguY