Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
>>>>> John Aldridge <john.aldridge@i...>: > Why? What's wrong with storing UTF-16 encoded data in a 32 bit > wchar_t? I know it uses more storage space; but there won't > typically be that much data around in this format at once. We store a lot of strings, so I think a quadrupling of the storage space compared with what we do today, or doubling wrt. to UTF-16, will be significant. Another thing is that if we actually have 32 bit available, I would have liked to use UCS-4, rather than UTF-16... using UCS-4 would fit better with the (But of course to do that, I would need to have platform specific code depending on sizeof(wchar_t)...:-/) > I'd much rather have the format defined to be wstring (or wchar_t*, if you > must, but that's another debate), because of the compatibility with wide > string literals. Hm... I don't know anything about wide string literals and their behaviour wrt. to wstring, text editors and debuggers. Could you elaborate, maybe...? xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
