On 29.03.2008, at 10:42, imm wrote: > On 29 Mar 2008, at 8:04, matthiasm wrote: >> I am in the process of >> comparing the current 1.1.8 UTF-8 patch, Oksid's 1.1.6 patch, and >> whatever we did in 2.0 to find the best possible API and then merge >> it >> all together. > > Does this review also encompass my patched 1.1.8 version?
Yes, that was the first one I was referring to. Am I missing yet another UTF-8 patch? Your latest version is fltk118-utf8-2008-02-24, right? > That should be closer to the "real" 1.1.8 than OksiD's code, and has > some "improvements" that I added. I also back-ported some of the > fltk-2 changes in to the fltk-1 variant. > IIRC, I also excised a fair bit of win32 legacy support code, that > OksiD had added to support win9x style systems - I assumed that is no > longer needed? That is correct. No more Win95/98 support. > I can't comment on whether the fltk-1 or fltk-2 utf8 code is "best", > though. I'm not able to make that call objectively. Well, I am absolutely fresh to UTF-8. I get the concept, but I don't know the calls. I am trying to get anice solution for MSWindows, X11, and OS X out of what we have, changing the API to be less confusing and allowing UTF-8 based menu shortcuts and other fine grained solutions. > Cheers - hope it makes some sort of sense. It needs this independent > review, I reckon! Yes, makes complete sense. From what I see so far, I can copy and paste a lot of things (if not all) from your version and some FLTK2. The worse fix will be to find all places that use "char" and "char*" and decide if a text string is handled or some binary data, and then update the code accordingly. UTF-8 being back-compatible to ASCII is great, but it is also a trap when forgetting to port some routines because they look right. Eventually they will fail. Matthias ---- http://robowerk.com/ _______________________________________________ fltk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
