future of the C++
in [C++]
|
Prev: Generating a derived class from a base class
Next: Why is the return type of count_if() "signed" rather than "unsigned"?
From: Mathias Gaunard on 15 Jul 2010 10:47 On Jul 15, 4:04 pm, "joe" <jc1...(a)att.net> wrote: > Mathias Gaunard wrote: > > On Jul 6, 1:48 pm, "joe" <jc1...(a)att.net> wrote: > >> Andre Kaufmann wrote: > > >>> Agreed, C# and Java strings are not perfect, but better than C++ > >>> standard strings regarding Unicode. I think C# has been influenced > >>> by Windows Unicode support. > > >> What is wrong with fixed-width Unicode (UCS-2 or UCS-4)? > > > UCS-2 doesn't allow to represent all Unicode characters. > > Most application programs don't need them. You might as well say most application programs don't need Unicode. > > > UCS-4 is a waste of memory. > > > And more abstract characters, like graphemes, are not fixed-width > > anyway (think combining character sequences). > > Those, again (here), are the exception to the rule. The rule is what it is. If you try to work at the grapheme level, you might as well do it correctly. > I am sure am glad I only program in English and only target > English-speaking users. Even within English, there are quite a few graphemes that are multiple code points, even when the string is in normalization form C. -- [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
From: Dragan Milenkovic on 16 Jul 2010 01:32 On 07/16/2010 03:35 AM, nmm1(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: > In article<lfos36los6n56ere5rqeoi4unljqts9k3k(a)4ax.com>, [snip] > None of that is portable, or practical to specify in standards like > those, but non-recoverable exception handlers are a good place to > put the system-dependent incantations needed to achieve the effect. > The point is that they are a syntactically portable hook to achieve > a semantically non-portable effect. May I ask why are they constantly being called "non-recoverable" exceptions, while in the same time they are used to recover the process instead? Just to be sure - I'm not talking about "log and reboot" solution, but "log and restart connection". While those mentioned may be non-standard exceptions (like the one resulting from a null pointer dereference), if I'm not mistaken, their usage shows recoverability. -- Dragan [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
From: Martin B. on 16 Jul 2010 01:30 Mathias Gaunard wrote: > On Jul 15, 4:04 pm, "joe" <jc1...(a)att.net> wrote: >> Mathias Gaunard wrote: >>> On Jul 6, 1:48 pm, "joe" <jc1...(a)att.net> wrote: >>>> Andre Kaufmann wrote: >>>>> Agreed, C# and Java strings are not perfect, but better than C++ >>>>> standard strings regarding Unicode. I think C# has been influenced >>>>> by Windows Unicode support. >>>> What is wrong with fixed-width Unicode (UCS-2 or UCS-4)? >>> UCS-2 doesn't allow to represent all Unicode characters. >> Most application programs don't need them. > > You might as well say most application programs don't need Unicode. > I might be noted that the Basic Multilingual Plane[*] seems to be enough for everyone except for *extended* CJK characters. (Whatever that is. I guess only east-asian native speakers can tell if they need that.) [*] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_plane#Basic_Multilingual_Plane cheers, Martin -- [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
From: Dragan Milenkovic on 16 Jul 2010 07:36 On 07/16/2010 06:30 PM, Martin B. wrote: > Mathias Gaunard wrote: >> On Jul 15, 4:04 pm, "joe" <jc1...(a)att.net> wrote: >>> Mathias Gaunard wrote: >>>> UCS-2 doesn't allow to represent all Unicode characters. >>> Most application programs don't need them. >> >> You might as well say most application programs don't need Unicode. >> > > I might be noted that the Basic Multilingual Plane[*] seems to be enough > for everyone except for *extended* CJK characters. (Whatever that is. I > guess only east-asian native speakers can tell if they need that.) It's the developers that need it - when a client wants it. -- Dragan [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
From: Walter Bright on 16 Jul 2010 07:37
Dragan Milenkovic wrote: > May I ask why are they constantly being called "non-recoverable" > exceptions, while in the same time they are used to recover > the process instead? They're non-recoverable in the sense that language guarantees may not hold if they are caught. For example, destructors may not have been called during stack unwinding. Function purity guarantees may have been violated. -- [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ] |