Re: Support for Windows unicode paths
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Support for Windows unicode paths
- From: David Given <dg@...>
- Date: 2009年7月23日 14:23:19 +0100
Alex Queiroz wrote:
[...]
UTF-8 is best for serialisation (writing text to disk, to socket
etc.). For in-memory strings it makes a lot of algorithms harder.
UCS-2 was a bad idea, but UTF-16 works perfectly well. UTF-32 is even
better.
Not much, I'm afraid --- as each glyph can be comprised from multiple
code points, having fixed-size code points doesn't help a great deal.
Your algorithms still have to cope with variable-sized groups of code
points. And if you're going to do that, you might as well use UTF-8 for
its ASCII interoperability features.
--
┌─── ｄｇ＠ｃｏｗｌａｒｋ．ｃｏｍ ───── http://www.cowlark.com ─────
│
│ "They laughed at Newton. They laughed at Einstein. Of course, they
│ also laughed at Bozo the Clown." --- Carl Sagan
- References:
- Support for Windows unicode paths, Thomas Harning Jr.
- Re: Support for Windows unicode paths, Bulat Ziganshin
- Re: Support for Windows unicode paths, David Given
- Re: Support for Windows unicode paths, Thomas Harning Jr.
- Re: Support for Windows unicode paths, Jerome Vuarand
- Re: Support for Windows unicode paths, Joshua Jensen
- Re: Support for Windows unicode paths, Shmuel Zeigerman
- Re: Support for Windows unicode paths, Miles Bader
- Re: Support for Windows unicode paths, Joshua Jensen
- Re: Support for Windows unicode paths, Miles Bader
- Re: Support for Windows unicode paths, Alex Queiroz