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.