Le Chaud Lapin ha scritto:
>
> Second, the example I used comparing French "exasperation" to English
> "exasperation" was poor. I was probably tired. I am again tired, so
> no good examples come to mind right now, but my gut feeling is that
> the class should have at least what I have been calling "locale", even
I guess "language" is a more appropriate term than locale here, unless
with "locale" you mean other kind of contextual metadata, which is bound
to be more complex.
> though that might not be the correct term. All of you have warned
> against putting intelligence in the string class. I wonder if this bit
> of extra information would count as too much intelligence. While I
> have not read enough about Unicode to know the path I will follow, I
> will probably include this bit of information anyway.
> <snip>
> String<> s1 = "mein"; // German for English "mine"
> String<> s2 = "mein"; // English stolen from Chinese for type of
> noodle.
Ok, so... what about this:
"Let's eat spaghetti, a bratwurst and a crème brûlée"
is this English, Italian, German or French? You can't simply attach
metadata to the *whole* string, you have to consider substrings too. You
have two choices, either you can store metadata in a struct separate
from the textual data, or you store them in the textual data itself by
effectively introducing some form of tagging. XML (with xml:lang) and
Unicode language tags (see 16.9 in
http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.0.0/ch16.pdf)
follow in the
latter category. Despite the obvious added complexity in parsing and
traversing the string, the tag approach has a lot of advantages.
However, according to Unicode terminology, attached metadata are
responsibility of a "higher level protocol" and so, IMHO, should not be
addressed by the basic container.
Just my opinion,
Ganesh
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm
for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
|
