Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Florian Klaempfl > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Who says that? UTF-16 is simply chosen because it has features (supporting >> all characters basically) ANSI doesn't? > > Sorry, my message was unclear and I got somewhat mixed up between ANSI > and UTF-8. I meant the encoding type of String or UnicodeString being > UTF-16 instead of UTF-8. The CodeGear newsgroups are full of people > saying that UTF-16 was chosen because they could call the 'W' api's > without needing a conversion. > > My question is, has anybody actually seen the speed difference (actual > timing results) showing UTF-16 string calling 'W' api's compared to > UTF-8->UTF-16 and then calling the 'W' api's. With today's computers, > I can't imagine that there would be a "significant speed loss" using > such conversions. The speed difference might be milliseconds, but > that's not really "significant speed loss" is it?
Windows has no utf-8 string processing routines so any case conversion, comparision whatever needs an utf-8 -> utf-16 conversion. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
