OK, this has turned into a long essay, so unless questions are really
addressed to me explicitly, I will try to avoid writing anything else
on this subject.
Here's my Jeremiad on Unicode. Take it for what it's worth.
"Johny Mattsson (EPA)" wrote:
>
>Part 1.1Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
"Peter S. Housel" wrote:
> > o Complete disdain for ISO-10646 being 32 bits, when 16
> > of them are never anything but 0, and were put there just
> > so that people could grep -v other people's languages out
> > of documents
> >
> > o I'll believe Hieroglyphics and Linear B when I see the
> > fon
Title: RE: PATCH: wchar_t is already defined in libstd++
Hi Terry and all,
I usually just lurk on the list, but since I'm a C++ afficionado, I wanted to question your below snipped statement.
If we settle on wchar_t being 16bits, then we will still be forced to do UTF-7/8/16 to pro
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 04:46:32AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
: My ulterior motives are:
: o Complete disdain for ISO-10646 being 32 bits, when 16
: of them are never anything but 0, and were put there just
: so that people could grep -v other people's languages out
: of doc
Thomas David Rivers wrote:
> > Personally, I vote for u_int16_t... Unicode 16 bit, vs. ISO-10646
> > code page zero (other code pages aren't defined at all anyway, and
> > it matches Windows, in case you want to use an ELF library from a
> > Windows box, if you can figure out how).
>
> I noticed
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Martin Blapp wrote:
> > This looks ok to me. And like this we would only have to change one
> > file, Garrett is right.
>
> That's the first thing I said: "Garrett's right".
>
> David O'Brian had the point that there was a tools dependency that
> thi
"David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 06:16:45PM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > <<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> > > The correct approach (and, I have to admit to not
> > > glancing at your patch) would be:
> >
> > >#ifndef __cplusplus
> > >typedef
Martin Blapp wrote:
> This looks ok to me. And like this we would only have to change one
> file, Garrett is right.
That's the first thing I said: "Garrett's right".
David O'Brian had the point that there was a tools dependency that
this imposes that maybe ought not to be there. Since wchar_t i
Hi Terry,
> Terry Lambert wrote:
> > In any case, here is a patch for i386; you will need similar
> > patches for the other architectures.
>
> Oops.
>
> I messed the negative logic. BTW, that should be an #ifndef
> insdtead of a #ifdef in your original patch.
>
> Here is a corrected patch for a
On 17 Jun, David O'Brien wrote:
>> Actually, the correct approach would be to avoid defining
>> _BSD_WCHAR_T_ when compiling C++. This way, it only needs to be done
>
> I am much more likely to force the libstdc++ build to use our
> _BSD_WCHAR_T_. Our types should be centralized and not in som
10 matches
Mail list logo
