Re: [libxml++] Benefit of the dependency on glibmm

[Murray C. <mu...@mu...>]

On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 16:01 +0200, Alexander Vassilev wrote:
> better integrated with gtkmm, and that integration is the reason to 
> have ustring istead of std::string

No, ustring has API for UTF-8 strings, which the string is. Some of the 
std::string API assumes one-byte-per-character. That's why ustring exists. 
It's not critical but I find it clearer.

> I think there can 
> be a way to do it, without doing a fork - just a mechanism that
> allows 
> the string implementation to be switchable at compile time, something 
> involving a stub class that wraps the string api and has switchable 
> underlying implementation, or the dreaded DEFINE-s. 

Sorry, I've rejected this idea before. I don't want the confusion of two
ABIs of one library. Sooner or later some distro will ship the wrong
one. If you want this, you really must fork, rename, and maintain it
yourself.

Again, this has been discussed plenty before and I don't wish to repeat
it.

-- 
mu...@mu...
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com