me: >> To start with, I'm just looking at handling the ISO definitions, as >> is, and will add warnings to the documentation. Then I'll look at >> this extra mapping. After that we probably need an RFC to discuss it.
Ian: > OK. > Looking at mk_wcwidth() it looks like the mod is pretty easy... > [... original code...] > Which I guess could become: > [... modified code...] >From my explorations so far, I had identified only one place where it was necessary to call mk_wcwidth(). In the end there might be more places where it's necessary. I would prefer to add conditionals before the mk_wcwidth() call to deal with the special case control codes first, or to wrap the mk_wcwidth() call in another routine that handled both control codes and the rest. I was even considering whether mk_wcwidth() should be directly visible at all, and wrap it with an fl_someNameHere() routine anyway to keep things consistent. If we keep MK's wcwidth.c in its vanilla state, we can swap in an update or replacement if it is ever needed without much fuss. Not that I expect the ISO definitions to change any time soon... D. _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
