Hi,
At Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:48:51 +0100 (BST),
Markus Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why does gcc not simply follow the standard POSIX rules and use
> nl_langinfo(CODESET) to determine the encoding of source code from the
> encoding? Strictly portable C source code should be in ASCII only,
> and good POSIX implementations do not support ASCII-incompatible
> locales, so there are no dangers added by locale-dependency.
Seconded. If a portable software wants to use non-ASCII characters,
it should use message catalogs. The common messages (messages before
translation) should be writen within ASCII.
> If
> people want to use anything beyond ASCII, the locale is the single central
> switch of choice for designating the used encoding. The shell offers
> with
>
> LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 gcc ...
>
> a standard per-invocation syntax that is just as convenient as
> non-standard command line options.
Yes, this works for private or local softwares. If we know that
the software is used only under one locale, we can write string
literal in any encodings which we prefer. (However, this cannot
be true for almost any open-source softwares.)
---
Tomohiro KUBOTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.debian.or.jp/~kubota/
"Introduction to I18N" http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/intro-i18n/
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
