On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 13:47:26 +0200
Michael Schnell via Lazarus <lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote:
> On 16.08.2017 13:17, Mattias Gaertner via Lazarus wrote:
> > You are confusing people if you name your encodings like this.
> There also is no "official" Code pages named "Default" or "None", the
> naming "CP_DEFAULT" and "CP_NONE" has just been invented by Emparcadero.
It is not about "official". A codepage describes a character set. What
has your CP_QWORD to do with any character set?
>[...]
> > What is the intention of your proposal?
>
> That is given in the instructional paragraph "The problem":
> "The most obvious candidate for pain on that behalf is “TStrings”.
I read it, but I must admit, I don't understand it. For some unknown
reason you want to store different encodings in a TStrings and fear
the "time-consuming" and loss-prone auto conversions. And then it
sounds as if this is a common problem ("much more urgent").
>[...]
> Enhancing the count of available encoding brandings is just a logical
> consequence of a less problem prone and more versatile (not implicitly
> restricted to printable text) overall string handling.
Who wants to have more encodings?
AFAIK everyone wants less, preferably only one.
> -Michael (It's rather frustrating to discuss that obviously never will
> happen :-()
Not if complicated things get more complicated.
Mattias
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org
https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
