On 02/17/2011 02:56 PM, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
What's simply nonsense with UTF-8/16 strings :-(
Of course right now it is. But this is what average programmers are used
to and what we will see in tons of legacy code that might one day is
needed top be compiled with a new version of Lazarus.
Length() since ever returned the number of *physical* elements.
Length() since ever returned the number of *visible* characters (until
Unicode was introduced to Lazarus :).
We obviously would need a UnicodeChar Type that holds the 32 Bit
encoding.
Iff we ever want to support such functionality.
Why should we not support a Unicode Character Type ?
The big mess starts with combinations of codepoints. No problems as
long as the RTL functions deal with the physical storage of the
codepoints, and nothing else.
But this is a quite lame excuse for not dealing with ("visual") Unicode
characters at all.
-Michael
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
