🚀 go-pugleaf

>While I'm on the topic of standard libraries, can anybody tell me where
>the localization library comes from?  Of all the standard library clauses
>in the last public draft, which are in general poorly specified and
>have very little priort art backing them up, this localization library
>clause is the worst.  Much of it so poorly specified (eg. the format
>of a number or monetary value) that it cannot function usefully as
>a standard.  Worse, it's even unimplimentable on some architectures
>(where sizeof(char) == sizeof(size_t)).  It doesn't seem to pay much
>attention to the prior art of POSIX and XPG4, and is overly complex
>for any general use.  Why did the committee feel that the C++ standard
>needed a standard localization library and why did it think the one it
>included in the draft standard did the job?

my understanding is that the localization library comes from the Rogue
Wave.  In a seminar I attended their CEO, Thomas Keffer was mentioning
the fact that the localization library in the Draft was very similar to
what they had upon when asked about C++ standard and tools.h++

muzo


standard disclaimer
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]