OK. But what I don't understand is: is this (lack of sqlite3_exec16) by design?
Yet another question on the library design. I've seen some projects which provide a same interface for all supported encodings, e.g. #ifdef _UNICODE #define sqlite3_open sqlite3_open_utf16 #else #define sqlite3_open sqlite3_open_ansi #endif #ifdef _UNICODE #define strcpy _strcpy_w #else #define strcpy _strcpy_a #endif I'd like to know the design rationales on why sqlite chose to make available the interfaces with different encodings simultaneously, and have the users _explicit_ choose which to use. 2006/7/10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
"Tzu-Chien Chiu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is it true: the only way the fetch the values of the fields in UTF-16 > is to write another version of sqlite3_exec() wrapping sqlite3_*16() > functions? > You do not have to write a new sqlite3_exec16() from scratch. You can make a copy of sqlite3_exec() and with a few simple edits turn it into sqlite3_exec16(). -- D. Richard Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-- Tzu-Chien Chiu - SMedia Technology Corp. URL: http://www.csie.nctu.edu.tw/~jwchiu/
