On Wednesday, 10 July 2019 22:01:04 -03 Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Wednesday, 10 July 2019 09:55:02 -03 André Pönitz wrote: > > As far as I understand there's a perceived need to have "full" utf8 > > literals, and there's a need to have ASCII literals. First could be > > served by some QUtf8*, second by QAscii*, both additions, no need to > > change QLatin* semantics. > > ASCII = Latin1
In the sense that the class holding ASCII should be the Latin1 class, for the reasons that Marc presented. It's actually faster to convert from Latin1 to UTF-16 than from US-ASCII to UTF-16 (unless we declare out-of-bounds US-ASCII UB). The only issue is what to do with the transforming functions toUpper and toLower. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel System Software Products _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development