Subject: Re: [boost] [unicode] Interest Check / Proof of Concept
From: James Porter (porterj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-19 17:40:03
James Porter wrote:
> This is probably workable. Do you envision something like the following?
>
> my_string.encode(source,utf8());
>
> It would have the benefit of making the interface for ct_strings and
> rt_strings the same. For ct_strings, it would specialize on the type of
> the encoding parameter, and for rt_strings, it would wrap the encoding
> up in some object to give it virtual dispatch.
I read through this again, and it doesn't actually make sense.
ct_strings would never need an encoding specified. Nevermind!
- Jim