On Mon, Mar 12, 2012, Omer Zak wrote about "Re: Unicode in C": > It depends upon your tradeoffs. >... > 2. Otherwise, specify two such APIs - one is UTF-8 based, one is fixed > size wide character based. Create two binary variants of the libhspell >...
This is why I asked this question in the first place - I'm aware of the tradeoffs, and the possibility two create two variants for every function (or three, if you include the existing ISO-8859-8 API). I was just wondering - could it be that 20 years (!) after UTF-8 was invented for use in Plan 9 to counter "wide characters", that neither method has "won"? As I see it, UTF-8 vs. wide characters (or UTF-16, or UTF-32, which are all similar for my needs) is a big-endian/little-endian kind of issue, where it's possible to list all sorts of advantages to each one, but at the end, each of the choices is good and has a large number of followers, and a choice has to be made. Continuing to use all of these approaches is not a good thing, as I see it. Even if in practice, I can write all these APIs with not too much effort, I think it's ugly. -- Nadav Har'El | Tuesday, Mar 13 2012, n...@math.technion.ac.il |----------------------------------------- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Live as if you were to die tomorrow, http://nadav.harel.org.il |learn as if you were to live forever. _______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
