On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 08:36:27 +0100 (CET) Daniël Mantione <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Op Wed, 16 Nov 2005, schreef Mattias Gaertner: > > > I don't understand, why you connect UTF8 with 'ignorant of MBCS'. > > UCS-2 can be used as ignorant as UTF8. > > Even UCS-4 and UTF32 will not solve all problems. Think about arabic > > RTL. > > Sure. I am not against UTF-8 or something (if you got that impression). > What I did note though is that adding UTF-8 (or widestring, it doesn't > matter) would mean doubling a lot of code, while with a separate RTL > would prevent, there would be single code that can be compiled for > multiple targets. > > > > In other words, you still need to duplicate an awfull lot of code. > > > > That is the same for 8bit and widestring. > > No, that is not true. There would be two rtls based on the same code. Can you give some examples, what parts of the RTL should change for widestring? > > > What convinced me two rtl's might be a better choice, is that many of > > > the source code remains intact and does not need to be duplicated. > > > New code could take advantage immedeately. The decision wether the > > > code is going to be used in an 8-bit environment (i.e. MS-DOS) and > > > will be 8-bit, or in a Unicode environment (i.e. Windows NT) and will > > > be 16-bit a character, is solved by a few ifdefs. There won't even be > > > any overhead on the MS-DOS executables (allthough the programmer can > > > use widestrings if he wishes so). > > > > Please: No two RTLs. > > A separate RTL is not my proposal, but the idea isn't that stupid. > > I am not going to push anything. Mattias _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel