On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:58:24 +0100 Michael Schnell <mschn...@lumino.de> wrote:
> On 02/11/2011 06:44 PM, Jürgen Hestermann wrote: > > I think the decision for UTF8 is very good. > AFAIK, the decision to use UTF8 is due to Linux using this encoding and > so no conversion is done in the LCL system API. No, that was just a nice goody. The decision was made at a time where many Linux distributions still use ISO character sets and most Windows used UCS-2. UTF-8 was chosen, because the LCL should use only one string type for easy usage, UTF-8 supports the whole unicode range, there was no reference counted widestring in FPC and porting existing code is easier with UTF-8. > This of course is bad > with Windows, as here the API uses UTF16 and everything needs to be > recoded in the LC System API on entry and exit. In almost all cases the overhead is insignificant compared to the GUI. For non gui tasks the overhead may be a problem, but that has nothing to do with the LCL. > Supposedly doing > different string types - UTF8String vs (a reference counting version of > UTF-16-encoded) WideString - for Linux and Windows at the LCL-user-Code > interface is too confusing. Mattias -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus