Marco van de Voort wrote: > In our previous episode, Michael Schnell said: >> If we really want a "character", MyChar would need to be a 32-Bit thing, >> and (in case of UTF, the [n] notation would need to scan the Unicode >> byte stream to find it, but I don't know if it's implemented in that way.) > > Afaik a character in the unicode sense can consist out of multiple > codepoints. (e.g. for languages that have many possibilities of combining > "accents" where there doesn't exist a glyph for every combination) > > So a character (as something that prints a whole) can consist out of > multiple 32-bit values (codepoints)
Even Worse !!! So "Unicode Character" does not make sense at all. I suppose converting a combined character into a single character is not possible as it would need a huge table. But if this conversion is possible (even if not in all cases) theoretically but not practically, this means that there is _no_ way to determine if Unicode strings are identical. This makes programming a profoundly obscene adventure and we better should start breeding cattle instead. Obviously combined Unicode characters are code from hell and should be banned completely :( . -Michael _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
