Jürgen Hestermann schrieb:
Am 2013-12-25 01:36, schrieb Hans-Peter Diettrich:
> Whenever the encoding matters, most users and applications are best off
> with their regional Ansi encoding - all used characters are single
bytes.
You forget that using ANSI API functions on Windows not only has the
drawback
that you cannot access all files (which have unicode characters in them)
but also that there is the limit of 255 characters for the path length
(while unicode API functions allow up to 32k characters).
For that purpose (file names) I vote for a dedicated string type, that
matches the target platform requirements. Then the user has not to look
at filenames on a per-character base.
Do you realy advice people nowadays to restrict their programs so far by
using ANSI API functions?
How many users have to use API functions, which are bound to a single
platform? And which of these do not understand how to handle strings of
whatever encoding?
DoDi
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
