On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Simon Slavin <slav...@bigfraud.org> wrote:
> > I think ... a higher priority than that would be handling Unicode > correctly. And having Unicode support would be useful in writing the code > which handles dates. > > size of SQLite library: approx 500 KB size of ICU library: approx 21,919 KB The ICU library (needed to handle Unicode "correctly") is over 40x larger than SQLite. Can you understand then why we don't want to make SQLite dependent upon ICU? If you really need correct ICU support, SQLite will optionally link with ICU and use it. But *requiring* SQLite to link against ICU is a deal-breaker for many users. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
