> Is there really anyone using UCS-2 now or did you mean UTF-16? No, I meant exactly UCS-2. Because UCS-2 guarantees that all symbols are represented by 2 bytes when UTF-16 does not. And I had an understanding that Doug said about this 16-bit guarantee. Also if we're talking about encoding where any character can be represented by a single variable of type wchar_t then we can talk only about UCS-2 or UCS-4, not about UTF-* variants. Though of course someone can talk about UTF-16 keeping in mind and relying on the fact that he will not ever deal with characters not fitting into 2 bytes in UTF-16 encoding and thus he effectively will work with UCS-2.
Pavel On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Jean-Christophe Deschamps<j...@q-e-d.org> wrote: > Hi Pavel, > > ´¯¯¯ >>So conversion between wchar_t and >>UCS-2 encoding is not always as easy as you can think. > `--- > > Is there really anyone using UCS-2 now or did you mean UTF-16? > > > > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@sqlite.org > http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
