On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Random832 <random...@fastmail.us> wrote: > Okay, but why not work with a unicode code point as an int? >
-1 from me. It is utter madness to waste 32 (64 on x86_64) bits for a single glyph. According to a quick google those chars can become as wide as 6 bytes, and believe me you don't want that, as long as there are mblen(3) / mbrlen(3)... cheers! mar77i
