[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 9 May 2015 12:36:45 +0200
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: John Sully <john@...uare.ca>
Cc: luoyonggang@...il.com, blees@...n.de, musl@...ts.openwall.com,
dplakosh@...t.org, austin-group-l@...ngroup.org,
hsutter@...rosoft.com, Clang Dev <cfe-dev@...uiuc.edu>,
James McNellis <james@...esmcnellis.com>
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] Is that getting wchar_t to be 32bit on win32 a good
idea for compatible with Unix world by implement posix layer on win32 API?
* John Sully <john@...uare.ca> [2015-05-09 00:55:12 -0700]:
> In my opinion you almost never want 32-bit wide characters once you learn
> of their limitations. Most people assume that if they use them they can
> return to the one character -> one glyph idiom like ASCII. But Unicode is
wchar_t must be at least 21 bits on a system that spports unicode
in any locale: it has to be able to represent all code points of the
supported character set.
in practice this means that the only conforming definition to iso c
(and thus posix, c++ and other standards based on c) is a 32bit wchar_t
(the signedness can be choosen freely).
so the definition is not based on what "you almost never want" or what
"most people assume".
if the goal is to provide a posix implementation then 16bit wchar_t
is not an option (assuming the system wants to be able to communicate
with the external world that uses unicode text).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
