And so says Reed Hedges on 07/09/05 10:02... > (1) it's an extra pain in the neck for developers (i.e. > programmer-users) to worry about, especially coming from worlds like > C and descendents where the notion of non-ascii character sets are a > very recent addition and not a natural part of the language
I'd agree, if we were talking about C. But we're talking about C++. You can just have different setProperty or whatever methods that get single-byte std::string, and multibyte... eh... what's the class for that? :-) whatever. Oooh, interesting thought. Would types and contextual names be allowed to be unicode too? > and (2) if we add the extra "encoding" field, then we can put off > actually transitioning to unicode (or whatever) by saying that > currently the only valid encoding is ascii. Is that worth the trouble? If we're not ready to go unicode, just don't change the protocol yet. best, Lalo Martins -- So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable. -- http://www.exoweb.net/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GNU: never give up freedom http://www.gnu.org/ _______________________________________________ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d