On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:48:12 +0500 Ivanko B <ivankob4m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you replied to this mail then you lost me. > I don't understand what problem of UTF-8 for the RTL you want to point > out. Can you explain again? > ============== > Substringing etc manipulation only via normalizing to fixed-char type > which may be inefficient (especially because it performs for each > input argument & also for output - overhead multiplied by 3). > The ideal might be optimized (without pre/post-normalization) string > RTL with same set of procedures & functions & string related classes > for UTF-8, USC-2 & possibly UCS-4 or UTF-16 with working assignments > between them. Do you mean replacing a character in an UCS-2/UCS-4 string can be implemented more efficiently than in an UTF-8/UTF-16 string? Mattias _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
