[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 16-bit wchar_t on Windows and Cygwin
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: 16-bit wchar_t on Windows and Cygwin |
Date: |
Thu, 3 Feb 2011 01:12:51 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.9 |
Hi Eric,
> I was asking:
>
> should wwchar_t (or xwchar_t, but not xchar_t) be 2-bytes on cygwin, but
> unlike the POSIX definition of wchar_t being always 1 character per
> unit, the new type is explicitly documented as being multi-unit on some
> platforms but with sane semantics
>
> or should it always be 4-bytes, where conversion from wchar_t to
> wwchar_t requires some efforts, and where the new type must be used
> everywhere (which means wrapping a lot of APIs), but where you can once
> again assume POSIX semantics of 1 character per unit, simplifying life
> of callers at the expense of converting to the new type
In the first case we wouldn't need a new type.
The plan is the second alternative. The goal is *not* to have to extend
each of quotearg.c, regcomp.c, mbchar.h, wc.c, etc. to handle UTF-16
explicitly with #ifdefs, more variables, and more logic.
> if it works out, should we also add wwchar_t natively into cygwin?
More and more Unix platforms offer only UTF-8 locales. One can predict
that in 10 years, all Unix platforms will offer only UTF-8 locales. At this
point wchar_t will be UCS-4 on all these platforms (except AIX).
The mbrtoc32 function from the C1X API that you pointed to will then be
equivalent to mbrtowwc.
So, you can view 'wwchar_t' as a temporary measure that will bridge the
gap between the ANSI C Amd. 1 API and the C1X API.
Bruno
--
In memoriam Carl Friedrich Goerdeler
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Friedrich_Goerdeler>
- Re: 16-bit wchar_t on Windows and Cygwin, (continued)
Re: bug#7948: 16-bit wchar_t on Windows and Cygwin, Paul Eggert, 2011/02/02
Re: 16-bit wchar_t on Windows and Cygwin, Eric Blake, 2011/02/02
Re: 16-bit wchar_t on Windows and Cygwin, Corinna Vinschen, 2011/02/02