On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 07:08:09PM -0600, Timothy Brownawell wrote: > Is there any particular reason that our utf8 type is ATOMIC_NOVERIFY() > instead of ATOMIC()?
With, presumably, the verify() function verifying that the string in question was in fact valid utf8? The problem is just that I suspect if we did that now, everything would start crashing, because we're really kind of fast and loose with charsets. Lapo made this a little better at the summit, starting to add _strict and _best_effort conversion functions, but lots more work is definitely needed. (Also, there were reports that the _best_effort code didn't actually work with lots of broken iconv's found in the wild...) > Also, does anyone have any thoughts about reorganizing vocab somewhat? > In particular, DECORATE() seems kinda backwards -- if the > 'revision'/'roster'/whatever was the template argument instead of the > outermost template, then a number of our transform functions could be > templatized themselves instead of manually defining however many copies. Whatever works... but what about the places where we use raw data, id, etc.? > Would there be objections to deriving vocab types from eachother? We > seem to be using utf8 for a lot of things, and it might be nice to have > distinct types for these uses while preserving that they're still in > utf-8 format. Again, whatever works... I guess I'd want to see the use cases in the code before expressing an opinion about whether C++ inheritance gives anything useful? -- Nathaniel -- "Of course, the entire effort is to put oneself Outside the ordinary range Of what are called statistics." -- Stephan Spender _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
