Kuba Ober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On ¶roda 18 grudzieñ 2002 10:55 am, Angus Leeming wrote:
>> On Wednesday 18 December 2002 3:45 pm, Kuba Ober wrote:
>> > Would it make any sense to use something like this:
>> > typedef uint16_t lchar_t;
>> > typedef std::basic_string<lchar_t> lstring;
>> >
>> > "l" stands for LyX (or low-overhead-in-conversion-to-QString) ;-)
>>
>> SMiyata (sp?) suggested something similar to this some time ago when
>> describing what CJK-LyX needed before the two codes could be merged. He
>> noted that wchar_t is shot on several different platforms.
>
| Not only shot, but possibly too wide as well. I don't think we
| really need 32
32 bits (ucs-4) will work best for us, espceially since we store
individual charactes in the document. then all support functions is a
lot easier.
anyway the transformation utf-16->ucs-4->utf-16 is not slow... and
will mostly be needed for gui.
--
Lgb
