In our previous episode, Michael Schnell said: > I had hoped that using the dynamically encoded string type nearly > everywhere would allow for a great lot of not OS-specific code in the > VCL (and LCL) without the need for excessive conversions maintaining the > systems' coding (UTF-16 or UTF-8) in and out with GUI-centric user code.
That was our original idea. But it also required the input granularity (1,2 maybe 4) to be a variable. > I thought this would have been the main reason for introducing the > additional complexity of the dynamically encoded string type. Embacadero however decided otherwise and kept a wall between the 1 and 2 byte types. So at least 1 and 2 byte types as basetype are different targets. I still have to study Jonas last message. It seems to indicate that I misunderstood what rawbytestring. If that is true, Jonas is right, separating the targets will result in two targets (rawbytestring and unicodestring) _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel