On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I can only guess about QT's reasons. In Kylix times I once heard a rumour
> that QT was mostly modeled after NT's api philosophy, to make it programmers
> easier to migrate.
I have never heard that and can't think t
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
> >> Why reinvent the wheel with all these different string types and
> >> round-about discussions etc... Can we learn something from other
> >> multi-platform frameworks that solved these problems ages ago!
> >
> > Who said they did?
>
> Well, who
In our previous episode, Sergei Gorelkin said:
> > don't have to go through the whole R&D process. Study what those two
> > frameworks did and apply the same thing to Free Pascal!
> >
> Unfortunately what those frameworks did isn't directly applicable to FPC.
> First, as I understand, they have on
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Then for backward compatibility use UTF-8 as the only string type.
That's what UTF-8 was designed for - backward compatibility. That's
also the reason LCL uses UTF-8.
You cannot use *only* utf-8, the existing ShortString, AnsiString and
Wide/UnicodeString types have t
On Tue, December 2, 2008 13:59, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Sergei Gorelkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately what those frameworks did isn't directly applicable to
>> FPC.
>> First, as I understand, they have only one (UTF-16) string type. This is
>> g
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Sergei Gorelkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately what those frameworks did isn't directly applicable to FPC.
> First, as I understand, they have only one (UTF-16) string type. This is
> good because it avoids whatever mess related to conversions, but not
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Sergei Gorelkin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Third, QT is a shared library (and Java framework may also be treated as
> such), and it implements huge Unicode conversion tables without putting them
> into every executable.
Not every executable. Only if you want to u
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
So would it maybe help if we took a peek at what those frameworks have
done. Clearly they managed to do it right as no developers or users
are complaining! So I guess Free Pascal could learn from them and
don't have to go through the whole R&D process. Study what those
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why reinvent the wheel with all these different string types and
>> round-about discussions etc... Can we learn something from other
>> multi-platform frameworks that solved these problems ages ago!
>
> Who said they
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
> Why reinvent the wheel with all these different string types and
> round-about discussions etc... Can we learn something from other
> multi-platform frameworks that solved these problems ages ago!
Who said they did? Who says their solution is mo
Hi,
Why reinvent the wheel with all these different string types and
round-about discussions etc... Can we learn something from other
multi-platform frameworks that solved these problems ages ago! I
Google'd and couldn't even find any message thread about programmers
complaining about unicode an
11 matches
Mail list logo
