source: downloads/boost_1_33_1/libs/program_options/doc/design.xml @ 20

<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<!DOCTYPE library PUBLIC "-//Boost//DTD BoostBook XML V1.0//EN"
     "http://www.boost.org/tools/boostbook/dtd/boostbook.dtd"
[
    <!ENTITY % entities SYSTEM "program_options.ent" >
    %entities;
]>
<section id="program_options.design">
  <title>Design Discussion</title>

  <para>This section focuses on some of the design questions.
  </para>

  <section id="program_options.design.unicode">

    <title>Unicode Support</title>

    <para>Unicode support was one of the features specifically requested
      during the formal review. Throughout this document "Unicode support" is
      a synonym for "wchar_t" support, assuming that "wchar_t" always uses
      Unicode encoding.  Also, when talking about "ascii" (in lowercase) we'll
      not mean strict 7-bit ASCII encoding, but rather "char" strings in local
      8-bit encoding.
    </para>
          
    <para>
      Generally, &quot;Unicode support&quot; can mean
      many things, but for the program_options library it means that:

      <itemizedlist>
        <listitem>
          <para>Each parser should accept either <code>char*</code>
          or <code>wchar_t*</code>, correctly split the input into option
          names and option values and return the data.
          </para>
        </listitem>
        <listitem>
          <para>For each option, it should be possible to specify whether the conversion
            from string to value uses ascii or Unicode.
          </para>
        </listitem>
        <listitem>
          <para>The library guarantees that:
            <itemizedlist>
              <listitem>
                <para>ascii input is passed to an ascii value without change
                </para>
              </listitem>
              <listitem>
                <para>Unicode input is passed to a Unicode value without change</para>
              </listitem>
              <listitem>
                <para>ascii input passed to a Unicode value, and Unicode input
                  passed to an ascii value will be converted using a codecvt
                  facet (which may be specified by the user(which can be
                  specified by the user)
                </para>
              </listitem>                 
            </itemizedlist>
          </para>
        </listitem>
      </itemizedlist>
    </para>

    <para>The important point is that it's possible to have some "ascii
      options" together with "Unicode options". There are two reasons for
      this. First, for a given type you might not have the code to extract the
      value from Unicode string and it's not good to require that such code be written.
      Second, imagine a reusable library which has some options and exposes
      options description in its interface. If <emphasis>all</emphasis>
      options are either ascii or Unicode, and the library does not use any
      Unicode strings, then the author will likely to use ascii options, which
      would make the library unusable inside Unicode
      applications. Essentially, it would be necessary to provide two versions
      of the library -- ascii and Unicode.
    </para>

    <para>Another important point is that ascii strings are passed though
      without modification. In other words, it's not possible to just convert
      ascii to Unicode and process the Unicode further. The problem is that the
      default conversion mechanism -- the <code>codecvt</code> facet -- might
      not work with 8-bit input without additional setup.
    </para>

    <para>The Unicode support outlined above is not complete. For example, we
      don't plan allow Unicode in option names. Unicode support is hard and
      requires a Boost-wide solution. Even comparing two arbitrary Unicode
      strings is non-trivial. Finally, using Unicode in option names is
      related to internationalization, which has it's own
      complexities. E.g. if option names depend on current locale, then all
      program parts and other parts which use the name must be
      internationalized too.
    </para>

    <para>The primary question in implementing the Unicode support is whether
      to use templates and <code>std::basic_string</code> or to use some
      internal encoding and convert between internal and external encodings on
      the interface boundaries.            
    </para>

    <para>The choice, mostly, is between code size and execution
      speed. A templated solution would either link library code into every
      application that uses the library (thereby making shared library
      impossible), or provide explicit instantiations in the shared library
      (increasing its size). The solution based on internal encoding would
      necessarily make conversions in a number of places and will be somewhat slower.
      Since speed is generally not an issue for this library, the second
      solution looks more attractive, but we'll take a closer look at
      individual components.
    </para>

    <para>For the parsers component, we have three choices:
      <itemizedlist>
        <listitem>
          <para>Use a fully templated implementation: given a string of a
            certain type, a parser will return a &parsed_options; instance
            with strings of the same type (i.e. the &parsed_options; class
            will be templated).</para>
        </listitem>
        <listitem>
          <para>Use internal encoding: same as above, but strings will be converted to and
            from the internal encoding.</para>
        </listitem>
        <listitem>
          <para>Use and partly expose the internal encoding: same as above,
            but the strings in the &parsed_options; instance will be in the
            internal encoding. This might avoid a conversion if
            &parsed_options; instance is passed directly to other components,
            but can be also dangerous or confusing for a user.
          </para>
        </listitem>
      </itemizedlist>
    </para>

    <para>The second solution appears to be the best -- it does not increase
    the code size much and is cleaner than the third. To avoid extra
    conversions, the Unicode version of &parsed_options; can also store
    strings in internal encoding.
    </para>

    <para>For the options descriptions component, we don't have much
      choice. Since it's not desirable to have either all options use ascii or all
      of them use Unicode, but rather have some ascii and some Unicode options, the
      interface of the &value_semantic; must work with both. The only way is
      to pass an additional flag telling if strings use ascii or internal encoding.
      The instance of &value_semantic; can then convert into some
      other encoding if needed.
    </para>

    <para>For the storage component, the only affected function is &store;.
      For Unicode input, the &store; function should convert the value to the
      internal encoding.  It should also inform the &value_semantic; class
      about the used encoding.
    </para>

    <para>Finally, what internal encoding should we use? The
    alternatives are:
    <code>std::wstring</code> (using UCS-4 encoding) and
    <code>std::string</code> (using UTF-8 encoding). The difference between
    alternatives is:
      <itemizedlist>
        <listitem>
          <para>Speed: UTF-8 is a bit slower</para>
        </listitem>
        <listitem>
          <para>Space: UTF-8 takes less space when input is ascii</para>
        </listitem>
        <listitem>
          <para>Code size: UTF-8 requires additional conversion code. However,
            it allows one to use existing parsers without converting them to
            <code>std::wstring</code> and such conversion is likely to create a
            number of new instantiations.
          </para>
        </listitem>
          
      </itemizedlist>
      There's no clear leader, but the last point seems important, so UTF-8
      will be used.      
    </para>

    <para>Choosing the UTF-8 encoding allows the use of existing parsers, 
      because 7-bit ascii characters retain their values in UTF-8, 
      so searching for 7-bit strings is simple. However, there are
      two subtle issues:
      <itemizedlist>
        <listitem>
          <para>We need to assume the character literals use ascii encoding
          and that inputs use Unicode encoding.</para>
        </listitem>
        <listitem>
          <para>A Unicode character (say '=') can be followed by 'composing
          character' and the combination is not the same as just '=', so a
          simple search for '=' might find the wrong character.
          </para>
        </listitem>
      </itemizedlist>
      Neither of these issues appear to be critical in practice, since ascii is
      almost universal encoding and since composing characters following '=' (and
      other characters with special meaning to the library) are not likely to appear.
    </para>
                   
  </section>

  
</section>

<!--
     Local Variables:
     mode: xml
     sgml-indent-data: t     
     sgml-parent-document: ("program_options.xml" "section")
     sgml-set-face: t
     End:
-->