Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author: "Carl W. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.utf8
>
> There are another rationales for defining you own. First it make it easier
> to port to another platform. I have defined UChar32, UChar16, and UChar8.
> Second if you use a re-definition like UChar8 for all UTF-8 code it will
> make sure that you use unsigned char consistently and not just char. This
> is something that will also bite you especially with different compilers.
>
Those names, although technically available, are high-risk of being
already defined, however. I have actually wondered if it wouldn't
make sense to create what could perhaps become a pseudo-standard if
nothing else using utf8_t, utf16_t and utf32_t.
-hpa
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at work, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
