For me personally, any new string type which doesn't look a lot like the
LLVM string type doesn't offer a compelling reason to break with
std::string.

There is some good stuff in your proposal. But I want a much more
sensible string object more than I want the other stuff.

Also, you really ought to review all the other Unicode string object
proposals current and historical, and do a matrix of comparison between
yours and all the others. No harm to throw in other language's string
objects too, if they are informative.

Niall

On 16/07/2019 16:55, Lyberta wrote:
> This is an early sketch of proposal for std::code_unit_sequence which is
> intended to directly replace std::u8string, std::u16string and
> std::u32string.
>
> It is based on std::vector so I removed most of useless member functions
> that std::basic_string has. The API is much cleaner.
>
> It uses strong types that I mentioned earlier. Those are classes and
> since they don't exist in C, there is no NUL-terminator. Finally, owning
> string and view are unified.
>
> As I plan to write many more proposals, I'm gonna create a single
> repository for them soon.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SG16 Unicode mailing list
> Unicode_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>