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