Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Locale (was Re: [SQL-Connectivity] Is Boost interested in CppDB?)
From: Artyom (artyomtnk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-12-15 13:50:46
>
> > Very strange. You mention your library as possibly being more complete
> > but then you tout someone else's. OK, I will study Artyom's Boost.Locale
> > instead.
>
> My library is more powerful in a way, but is also less polished and
>feature-complete.
> They also have completely different approaches in their interface, as my
>library is made
>
> to be locale-agnostic and Artyom's chooses to make use of the standard C++
>locale subsystem
> as much as possible, even though it is inherently broken for Unicode.
Few notes, std::locale is not "inherently broken" it has a great way to do
things,
just some things a generally done in imperfect way, the great thing about
std::locale
that it is extensible which allows to to fix some issues and use it very well.
BTW there are still things that even "broken" std::locale does well, for example
collation
(at least under Linux) works quite fine.
>
> My library is a generic implementation of Unicode, while Boost.Locale is
>mostly a
> wrapper on top of ICU, IBM's Unicode library.
>
Yes and not, it is not wrapper of ICU, but ICU is central part, you can use many
Unicode/Localization
providers even standard library and in many cases it works very well.
But ICU gives very good and high quality features that standard libraries
do not.
Artyom