On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:57 AM Rainer Deyke via Boost
I would not use it because I do not use Boost Program Options, and I do not expect a straight port to solve the problems I have with Boost Program Options.
My initial thinking was that to increase likelihood of adoption, it would be a good idea to provide an interface that people are familiar with, but it's true that the API has a lot of issues. This proposal may be a non-starter, which is fine; I'm glad to get constructive feedback.
1. Unicode support is based on wchar_t instead of utf8. wchar_t has an implementation-defined width which makes it unsuitable for portable Unicode code. The correct way to handle Unicode in general is to use narrow strings encoded as utf-8. The correct way to handle Unicode on Unix systems is to accept narrow strings and to assume that they are in utf-8, regardless of locale. The correct way to handle Unicode on Windows is to accept wide strings and convert them to utf-8 immediately when received.
I'm not too familiar with dealing with non-ASCII character encodings in argv. Is it portable to assume that the input is UTF-8, regardless of locale? -Vicram Rajagopalan