Re: [Monotone-devel] Why is utf8 type _NOVERIFY, and other vocab stuff.

[Nathaniel Smith]

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