On 10/10/2018 03:28 PM, keld@keldix.com wrote:
Hi

I got around to read the paper.

Great, thanks, Keld!


Some questions:

Do you really require Unicode/10646 for the new specs?

I'm assuming you are asking about the motivation for P1025R1.  If not, please correct me.

Prior to P1025R1, the C++ standard did have a normative reference to ISO 10646, but it specifically named the 1993 version which predated UTF-16.  This left us without formal definitions for UTF-16, UTF-32, and surrogate code point despite use of those terms being present.

Why not allow normal POSIX/C/C++ character types?

I'm afraid I don't understand the question.  Allow these types in what context?


Another point: It is not necessary to normalize strings to
compare strings using locale aware string comparison.
This is probably a little known fact.

Yes.  The questions about comparison in the paper are with regard to whether a std::text type should have default comparison operators and, if so, which comparison algorithm should be used for that default.  That default could be based on canonical equivalence or language sensitive collation, but that would be overkill in situations where a fast lexicographical compare would suffice.

Tom.


Best regards
Keld

On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 01:13:38AM -0400, Tom Honermann wrote:

Enclosed is a draft of an SG16 direction paper to be discussed at our 
meeting tomorrow.  It's rough, but I think in sufficient shape for 
discussion.

If we manage to get through that paper, we'll discuss the paper Steve 
just posted to our mailing list [1] and/or Markus' feedback paper [2].

Tom.

[1]: http://www.open-std.org/pipermail/unicode/2018-October/000144.html
[2]: 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aI0mBcH-d3BLjs8NRHgGECbA320LGFgo-SrNJ6VnLKE/edit




_______________________________________________
SG16 Unicode mailing list
Unicode@isocpp.open-std.org
http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode