On Tuesday 21 August 2012 09:56:57 Ivanko B wrote: > For non-fixed char length there's nothing better than UTF8 (default > ASCII compatible, ready for any future alphabets,..). For fixed-char > length (fast string operations etc) also there's nothing better than > UCS-2 (the Earth coverage ) & UCS-4 (the galaxy coverage). > The non-fixed char length UTF-16 (UCS-2 + surrogate pairs) looks less > efficient than UTF-8 almost from any look point.
I disagree. Handling 1..4(6) bytes is less efficient than handling surrogate *pairs*. Martin _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
