From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-03-19 18:26:46
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 11:17 AM René Ferdinand Rivera Morell via
Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Yes, but.. I would like a library that handles various types of
> encoding/decoding with the "same" interface.
> ...
> url
> ...
Hmm.... I disagree. There are often unique qualities of an encoding
that complicate creating a generic API. For example, with
URL-encoding, there is the concept of the "reserved set." That is, the
set of characters for which escaping is required. Different parts of a
URL have different reserved sets. The target for example reserves the
forward slash (among other things). The query reserves the hashtag '#'
but not the forward slash.
On the other hand base64 has no concept of reserved sets as it
operates on unsigned integers of arbitrary bit width. One is a numeric
encoding, the other is a character encoding.
> If it's more than base-64, yes, it could be a Boost library.
It isn't clear why only offering base-64 functionality is
insufficient. In fact, as a proponent of "modular boost" surely you
see value in isolating each radix to its own library.
Thanks