Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:09:55 +0100, Markus Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> The last glibc 2.1.93+ version of glibc that I tested had iswprint()
> = 0 for every combining character and as a directly hardwired
> consequences also wcwidth() = -1 for every combining character.
This makes me think that I should always use a private implementation
of wcwidth for Haskell, instead of relying on the one in the C library,
as I do with character class predicates and toupper/tolower.
Is the width of Unicode characters a property defined more by Unicode
itself, or by the OS?
> Another thing about the glibc locales that I am somewhat sceptical
> about is that unassigned characters currently have iswprint() = 0.
> The BMP will continue to be extended for many years to come, and
> almost all characters that will go into currently unassigned slots
> will be printable.
OTOH many slots will probably never be assigned at all. It would be
strange to say that a nonexistant character is printable.
Perhaps an application that wants to make such assumption should
instead check for control characters, or other known to be
non-printable.
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk * [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://qrczak.ids.net.pl/
\__/
^^ SYGNATURA ZASTĘPCZA
QRCZAK
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
