Robert Brady wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>
> > I'm confused. I thought that the width of a Unicode character was fixed.
>
> Not quite.
>
> The return value of libc's wcwidth() is locale-dependant, and should be
> right for the terminal - as long as you honour this, noone has cause to
> complain.
Does the width of a Unicode character depend on the locale? Phew, that makes
it a lot more difficult to use. Or is it that when the locale uses the utf-8
encoding, the rest of the locale doesn't matter to wcwidth()?
Vim is able to edit Unicode independently from whatever the current locale is
set to. That is a big advantage over double-byte encodings, so far. It
appears this advantage is completely lost when there is a dependency between
wcwidth() and the current locale (not counting the encoding).
This also means it would be impossible to edit two texts in a different
language at the same time (in one xterm). I thought one of the goals of
Unicode was to allow mixing different languages, even in the same text.
The current implementation of wcwidth() from Marcus doesn't show any locale
dependency. Hopefull it can stay this way. Otherwise making international
software has yet another increase in complexity.
--
hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
112. You are amazed that anyone uses a phone without a modem on it...let
alone hear actual voices.
/// Bram Moolenaar -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.moolenaar.net \\\
((( Creator of Vim - http://www.vim.org -- ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim )))
\\\ Help me helping AIDS orphans in Uganda - http://iccf-holland.org ///
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
