On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Mattias Gärtner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So the roadmap from LCL pov is:
> - a RTL using unicode strings
> - changing the string types in the lazarus code
> - a fpc release with the unicode RTL
>From what I've heard about the Unicode RTL fpc developers recomend
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Michael Schnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Compiler support for a unicode string is not enough for the LCL.
>> As long as base classes like TStrings uses ansistrings, the LCL must use a
>> string type, that does no conversion.
>
> Of course you are right that t
Compiler support for a unicode string is not enough for the LCL.
As long as base classes like TStrings uses ansistrings, the LCL must use a
string type, that does no conversion.
Of course you are right that the RTL needs to be made up accordingly.
Maybe TStrings and friends are needed in mul
Zitat von Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> if a real utf8string would be a solution for Lazarus (I am not saying
> it is, but it could be), we need to have a directive to change the
> default string into utf8string. To avoid a huge amount of code to need
> to be suddenly changed.
if a real utf8string would be a solution for Lazarus (I am not saying
it is, but it could be), we need to have a directive to change the
default string into utf8string. To avoid a huge amount of code to need
to be suddenly changed. Then only "ansistring" needs to be changed.
--
Felipe Monteiro de
