Subject: Re: [SG16-Unicode] Namespaces
From: Tom Honermann (tom_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-04-11 23:10:25
What is the motivation for having a namespace specific to text at all?Â
Ranges needed a separate namespace in order to provide constrained
interfaces that were, in most but not all cases, functionally equivalent
to the non-constrained interfaces.Â New declarations were needed in
order to avoid breaking backward compatibility.Â I don't see a similar
motivation for text as the existing text related names 1) aren't great
names, and 2) are for interfaces that we explicitly don't want to
replicate.Â I think new interfaces deserve new names.Â I think it isÂ
also informative that none of the names proposed below recycle existing
names in 'std'.
On 3/30/19 5:11 PM, Lyberta wrote:
> Ranges has made a precedent that we can provide better versions of old
> functions by putting them into a separate namespace. It is general
> consensus that almost all current text related function are obsolete. We
> should consider a namespace for new ones.
> I think std::text fits this. This namespace would contain functions that
> are modern and can properly support Unicode (and other encodings!).
> There is also a precedent of my proposal and D1628 having separate
> namespace specifically for Unicode. Generally speaking, Unicode is a
> subset of text processing so in mathematical sense it would be obvious
> to put unicode namespace as std::text::unicode but here I agree that it
> is too much typing.
> So I propose the following:
> std::text for general purpose text algorithms (to be determined as we
> haven't even nailed the Unicode yet, but consider std::text::to_upper,
> std::unicode for Unicode classes and algorithms. Everything in std::text
> should be able to work with classes from std::unicode.
> Then we can add more encodings under std or maybe right into std::text
> if they are too simple.
> Theoretical examples:
> SG16 Unicode mailing list
SG16 list run by email@example.com