Re: wcwidth replacement problems

[Bruno Haible]

Alexander V. Lukyanov wrote:
> Well, Solaris wcwidth has many other deficiencies, e.g:
> solaris_wcwidth(0x220)=-1

Was added in Unicode 3.2.0 (2002).

> solaris_wcwidth(0x221)=-1   mk_wcwidth(0x221)=1
> solaris_wcwidth(0x234)=-1   mk_wcwidth(0x234)=1
> solaris_wcwidth(0x235)=-1   mk_wcwidth(0x235)=1
> solaris_wcwidth(0x236)=-1   mk_wcwidth(0x236)=1

Were added in Unicode 4.0.0 (2003).

> solaris_wcwidth(0x237)=-1   mk_wcwidth(0x237)=1

Was added in Unicode 4.1.0 (2005).

Unicode is a moving standard, as you know.

Where would you want to put the limit which version of Unicode the system
wcwidth() needs to support? My preference would be at Unicode 3.2.0,
because that covers all everyday needs whereas the additions in Unicode 4
and 5 are mostly exotic.

Bruno