Hello,
On 10/15/06, Borut Maricic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Discuss the possible future directions (including the
possibility of abandoning my approach altogether, of course,
if too complex/unnecessary) on the list
The last bug I found was wrong, but I found a new bug on your approach:
+
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:18:59AM +0200, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:41:42 +0200
> Borut Maricic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 2006-10-14 at 04:06,
> > Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> > > On 10/13/06, Mattias Gaertner <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
> On 10/20/06, Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > In fact, the Wide functions exist under any Win9x OS.
>>
>> I know what I saw, so I'm not to sure about that statement.
>
> But the important thing is that they exist, even if empty on win 95,
> so you
On 10/20/06, Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In fact, the Wide functions exist under any Win9x OS.
I know what I saw, so I'm not to sure about that statement.
But the important thing is that they exist, even if empty on win 95,
so you don't need to dynamically load the wide function
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
>> On 10/15/06, Borut Maricic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > E, I´m
>> sorry to say but I can immediatly see that your code breaks
>> Win98 support for the ANSI version of win32 widgetset.
>
> Osss. It seams that me and Marc were very wrong!! Simply using
> Wide f
On 10/15/06, Borut Maricic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > E, I´m sorry to say but I
can immediatly see that your code breaks
Win98 support for the ANSI version of win32 widgetset.
Osss. It seams that me and Marc were very wrong!! Simply using
Wide functions does not break Win98 support at all.
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
On 10/16/06, Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, on windows they work with ansi, on linux it it is just what is
specified a s LANG. No conversion is made.
But if you consider that the IDE won't run correctly on linux with
utf-8, in reality we only su
On 10/16/06, Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, on windows they work with ansi, on linux it it is just what is
specified a s LANG. No conversion is made.
But if you consider that the IDE won't run correctly on linux with
utf-8, in reality we only support iso encodings today.
Option2
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
On 10/16/06, Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMO there are 2 ways to solve this:
1) make 2 separate widgetstes. Im' not really pro this since it is hard
to maintain and causes a lot of duplicate code. We don't want the same
ifdef mess we have with gtk1
On 10/16/06, Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMO there are 2 ways to solve this:
1) make 2 separate widgetstes. Im' not really pro this since it is hard
to maintain and causes a lot of duplicate code. We don't want the same
ifdef mess we have with gtk1/2 again.
2) Load the functions at r
Borut Maricic wrote:
All Unicode related code must remain under IFDEFs, not contaminating
the ANSI version of Win32 widgetset because Unicode code is
experimental, and we are approaching 1.0, and if we don´t isolate it,
we may break Win32 interface, or delay 1.0 by introducing bugs. (Like
the lac
> All Unicode related code must remain under IFDEFs, not contaminating
> the ANSI version of Win32 widgetset because Unicode code is
> experimental, and we are approaching 1.0, and if we don´t isolate it,
> we may break Win32 interface, or delay 1.0 by introducing bugs. (Like
> the lack of support
I tryed to create general guidelines for the Unicode effort here:
http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/LCL_Unicode_Support
On 10/15/06, Borut Maricic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Discuss the possible future directions (including the
possibility of abandoning my approach altogether, of course,
if
Now, dear all,
IF you are not Felipe AND are not an_interesed_core_member
THEN disregard this mail completely and never open/use
attachments
ELSE proceed at your own risk!
What was/is my vision:
To enable Lazarus to produce Unicode-enabled Windows code
(if a developer wishes so and uses an appro
>> My last problem (which stopped me) was the OnKey...
>> handling, which handles Char and not String. Therefore TEdit
>> does not work correctly.
> Did you see these methods:
> IntfUTF8KeyPress
> UTF8KeyPress
> OnUTF8KeyPress
Well, most probably I am/was not enough aware of those
methods.
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:41:42 +0200
Borut Maricic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 2006-10-14 at 04:06,
> Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > On 10/13/06, Mattias Gaertner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Yes and no.
> >> I'm using UTF-8 with synedit.
> >> BIDI is not co
On 10/14/06, Borut Maricic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
like to add the patch). I will not be on-line over the
weekend, but could send these things to your private address
in the Sunday/Monday night. Just say if you want to see
them.
Sure! If it fits here, you could send to the mailling list, but
On 2006-10-14 at 04:06,
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 10/13/06, Mattias Gaertner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes and no.
>> I'm using UTF-8 with synedit.
>> BIDI is not complete.
>> And the key handling is not complete. But this is not an UTF-8 issue.
> And what
On 10/13/06, Mattias Gaertner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes and no.
I'm using UTF-8 with synedit.
BIDI is not complete.
And the key handling is not complete. But this is not an UTF-8 issue.
And what about my first mail? I would like to have some blessing from
someone of the core team about whi
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 05:07:06PM -0300, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
> Hello,
>
[...]
> * - Something else?
>
[..]
> People that need Win9x support can do magical
> tricks to add iso convertion in the future.
I think that we could use the strategy of the VLC folks,
see the new download
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:06:09 -0300
"Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/12/06, Christian Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I totally agree, unicode implemntation for actual os´s is for the
> > start more than enougth.
> > I dont think that many people use win98 or s
On 10/12/06, Christian Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I totally agree, unicode implemntation for actual os´s is for the start
more than enougth.
I dont think that many people use win98 or simelar. And also when this
is so, you can add
an depency to your program in case that unicode support is
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho said:
> Hello,
>
> I know this has being discussed before, but I think nothing really
> concrete was agreed upon.
Correct.
> If we were to add Unicode (and with that I mean UTF-8 ) support for
> Lazarus, without breaking any existing code, how could we do it? Which
> w
My initial idea is to simply switch into using W version of the
function, and use UTF8Decode and UTF8Encode to convert back and forth
from the API to LCL. People that need Win9x support can do magical
tricks to add iso convertion in the future.
I totally agree, unicode implemntation for actua
Hello,
I know this has being discussed before, but I think nothing really
concrete was agreed upon.
If we were to add Unicode (and with that I mean UTF-8 ) support for
Lazarus, without breaking any existing code, how could we do it? Which
way is prefered?
I see the following possibilities
* -
25 matches
Mail list logo
