Dennis Benzinger, 03.03.2009: > > 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" ;-)
No, that's for sure :) > 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? Not sure, a lot of #ifdef would vanish. Markus --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
