On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 at 15:17, Lars Knoll <lars.kn...@qt.io> wrote: > >> One way would be by enforcing utf8 as source encoding for Qt based > >> projects. It’s a huge shame that C++ doesn’t specify the encoding of > >> source code as opposed to pretty much any other programming language (hell > >> even JS got that one right…). > > > > You can ask the SG16 folks for more details, but it's waaaaayyyy too > > soon to make such a break. There are very serious users > > whose source code is EBCDIC. In a nutshell, C++ has supported multiple > > source encodings for a long time, and users rely > > on that. So sure, it's a shame, but the shame can hardly be avoided by > > anything else besides a time machine. > > Transcoding source code from one encoding to another is actually pretty > trivial. The current status doesn’t advocate anything, meaning you’re not > even getting some slight push into this direction. Making it a compiler flag > defaulting to utf8 would be step forward.
You don't need to change the standard to get that, and changing the standard doesn't give you that. > Currently it defaults to the locale encoding of your machine, a completely > broken concept given that people cooperate on developing code over different > machines and across countries. Worse if you have includes from different > projects and both use different input encodings. There simply is no way to > make this work unless you restrict yours source code to pure ascii. Even that's a subset. :P I have no particular heartburn about restricting source code to pure ascii. I, like you, am from a locale the characters of which many many foreign readers find seriously weird, and I have never had any trouble with the notion of restricting source code to pure ascii. I have always wanted to maximize the amount of people who can read my source code, and that means emojis are out. :) > In any case, we could advocate for utf8 being the input encoding when writing > Qt based code/projects or even make it the default. I wanted to do that for > Qt 5.0, but we couldn’t because MSVC didn’t support it at that time. It does > now however. I must wonder.. are the benefits of that really that useful? I suppose it's nice that you can just write utf-8 in your plain literals, but I wonder why a u"literal" is overly burdensome. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
