On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Graeme Geldenhuys <graemeg.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 September 2011 21:25, Marcos Douglas wrote: >> >> Graeme Geldenhuys, sometime, written that string type shoud be >> depended of plataform. I agree with him, but I don't know if this is > > +1 ;-) > > >> the easiest way... but this is be best way to codify our programs, >> don't you think? > > UnicodeString should meant UTF-8 on Linux, *BSD, MacOSX etc > Unicodestring should mean UTF-16 on Windows. > > That way you will have the best performance on each platform, because > the string type is native to each platform. > > All string function in the RTL should be unicode aware, and not make > stupid assumptions as is done so often with AnsiString (the whole 1 > byte being 1 char).
Perhaps the middle way(?) Take what Michael said: On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Michael Van Canneyt <mich...@freepascal.org> wrote: > The ansistring version must remain for backwards compatibility. > > Current strategy on fpc core seems to be to have 2 RTLs: > > One with unicode string, one with ansistring. They will have the same code, > but will be compiled twice, each time with a different compiler define to > decide which version it must be. ... and Graeme... > UnicodeString should meant UTF-8 on Linux, *BSD, MacOSX etc > Unicodestring should mean UTF-16 on Windows. ...and we have 2 RTL: 1. one to AnsiString (backwards compatibility); 2. one to UnicodeString to especific plataform. =) Marcos Douglas _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
