What is the motivation for having a
namespace specific to text at all? 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. New declarations were needed in order
to avoid breaking backward compatibility. 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. I think new interfaces deserve new names. I
think it is 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.
SG16 Unicode mailing list