Hi Markus! Am 03.03.2009 11:14, Markus Heidelberg schrieb: > Dennis Benzinger, 03.03.2009: >> >> Hi! >> >> Am 03.03.2009 06:40, James Vega schrieb: >> > [...] >> >> 2) Vim compiled with the --disable-multibyte configure option cannot use >> >> UTF-8, or any other multibyte encoding; in fact it doesn't even accept >> >> the 'encoding' option as valid. >> > >> > Is there a reason to allow building Vim without multibyte support? >> > Always having multibyte support would make the code simpler/smaller. >> >> It would make the code smaller but compiling without multibyte support >> probably makes the resulting binary smaller. That can make a big >> difference for users on resource constrained systems. > > What do you mean exactly with "resource constrained systems"? > On an old PC, Vim with multibyte should still run fast. > [...]
I meant systems which have or can use only a small amount of memory. For example (16bit) MS-DOS where you can only use 640KB. These systems may be rare nowadays but if you'll encounter one you'd probably be happy to be able to minimize the size of the binary. But I didn't try it out how much the size differs between a multibyte and a non-multibyte build. Therefore I wrote "_probably_ makes the resulting binary smaller" ;-) So if ripping out non-multibyte support does not make the code much simpler or smaller I'd simply keep it. Do you have any idea much simpler or smaller the code would be? Dennis Benzinger --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
