• From: Steinar Bang <sb@m...>
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: 25 Dec 1999 10:15:04 +0100

>>>>> Steve Harris <seh@s...>:

> ... It seems that so long as the compiler will guarantee that you
> can fit _at least_ 16 bits in a wchar_t, then your translation code
> would be sufficiently portable.

If you store a lot of strings (as we do), I'm afraid using twice the
amount of space that we actually need will be, will be a serious
perfomance killer.

I'm also worried that basic_string<> seems to really be meant for
uniform width character codings, and I'm not sure what happens once we
run into the surrogates that extends the coding beyond UCS-2.  Will we
be able to use it?  Will it create trouble of some sort?

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • Re: Request for Discussion: SAX 1.0 in C++
    • From: Steve Harris <sharris@p...>
  • Re: Request for Discussion: SAX 1.0 in C++
    • From: Steinar Bang <sb@m...>
  • Re: Request for Discussion: SAX 1.0 in C++
    • From: Steve Harris <seh@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Request for Discussion: SAX 1.0 in C++
• Next by Date: Re: psgml namespaces and schemas
• Previous by thread: Re: Request for Discussion: SAX 1.0 in C++
• Next by thread: SAX/C++: C++-specific design principles
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread