On 19.06.18 15:50, Lyberta wrote:
>> If you say that
>> basic_string can do this job just fine, what is a strong motivating
>> example for adding another specialized sequence container type?
>
> The main motivation is actually replacing it. std::basic_string was
> designed without any Unicode handling in mind so it doesn't belong in
> the standard nowadays. I hope to see it deprecated by C++26 and
> completely removed in C++32.

Simply "replacing basic_string" isn't enough. If basic_string can fill
the role intended for code_unit_sequence just fine, then it isn't clear
at all how this replacement is necessary nor better. So exactly what
does code_unit_sequence do better than basic_string?

-- 
Martinho