> *sigh* Yes, what he says is correct. Now to do something with > strings. I.e. reverse them, or any other operation that needs to split > the string into pieces. reversing a string properly requires a very deep understanding of unicode and huge lookup tables (reversing the code point order will break down when combining characters come in). Lukilly it is very rarely required outside toy examples.
tokenising a UTF-8 string does not require any special precautions because substring matching doesn't require any. blind truncation (say to fit a length limit) can cause partial characters on the end but the nature of utf-8 means that theese are much less of a problem than with more traditional multibyte encodings and are easy to clean up later. > > Try to do any operating with has to do with the order of characters (i.e. > compare strings). sorting/comparing utf-8 strings with a byte-orientated sort routine will have the same effect as sorting/comparing by unicode code point. If you wan't a culturally appropriate support you will need special code and you would have done even with a single byte encoding in most cases. > > If all you did need to do was nothing, people wouldn't be begging for > Unicode support, right? ms made the understandable but highly annoying descision to use a totally seperate unicode api. This means that apps that don't use unicode are limited to whatever ansi code page the system is using (which btw can be multibyte and a lot nastier to nieve apps that utf-8). _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
