Almost no programming language, perhaps other than Swift, solved that problem. Just use the article's examples as test cases. It's just as wrong as the C++ version in the article, except it's wrong with nicer syntax.
That doesn’t prevent adding a new function that converts an entire string to upper or lowercase in a Unicode aware way.
What would be wrong with adding new correct functions to the standard library to make this easy? There are already namespaces in C++ so you don’t even have to worry about collisions.
That’s the problem I see. It’s fine if you have a history of stuff that’s not that great in hindsight. But what’s wrong with having a better standard library going forward?
The reason that wasn't done is because Unicode is not really in older C++ standards. I think it may have been added to C++23 but I am not familiar with that. There are many partial solutions in older C++ but if you want to do it well then you need to get a library for it from somewhere, or else (possibly) wait for a new standard.
Unicode and character encodings are pretty esoteric. So are fonts. The stuff is technically everywhere and fundamental, but there are many encodings, technical details, etc. And most programmers only care about one language, or else only use UTF-8 with the most basic chars (the ones that agree with ASCII). That isn't terrible. You only need what you actually need. Most programs don't strictly have to be built for multiple random languages, and there is kind of a standard methodology to learn before you can do that.
cm2187|1 year ago
kccqzy|1 year ago
MBCook|1 year ago
That doesn’t prevent adding a new function that converts an entire string to upper or lowercase in a Unicode aware way.
What would be wrong with adding new correct functions to the standard library to make this easy? There are already namespaces in C++ so you don’t even have to worry about collisions.
That’s the problem I see. It’s fine if you have a history of stuff that’s not that great in hindsight. But what’s wrong with having a better standard library going forward?
It’s not like this is an esoteric thing.
wakawaka28|1 year ago
Unicode and character encodings are pretty esoteric. So are fonts. The stuff is technically everywhere and fundamental, but there are many encodings, technical details, etc. And most programmers only care about one language, or else only use UTF-8 with the most basic chars (the ones that agree with ASCII). That isn't terrible. You only need what you actually need. Most programs don't strictly have to be built for multiple random languages, and there is kind of a standard methodology to learn before you can do that.