On 04/03/09 08:24, James Vega wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 01:27:29AM -0500, James Vega wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 01:12:36PM +0100, Dennis Benzinger wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Indeed, but there are currently checks that prevent Vim from building
>> with multibyte support on such systems (ints that are smaller than 32
>> bit). I guess supporting such OSes would be a reason not to disallow
>> building without multibyte entirely.
>>
>> That does raise the question of where the trade-off between keeping
>> legacy, mostly unused code versus dropping support occurs.
>
> Actually, according to<http://www.vim.org/download.php>, the 16-bit DOS
> executable stopped being provided as of Vim 7.2 because 7.2 was too
> large for DOS' memory model.
>
>>> 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?
>> Well, since supporting 16bit systems is still desirable, there'd be no
>> change in code size.
>
> Since 16-bit DOS is out of the picture, are there any other supported
> OSes which *don't* have 32-bit integers? If so, that changes the weight
> behind supporting the ability to build Vim without multibyte support.
>
> Of course, this whole tangent is just about speculative advantages to
> only supporting multibyte-capable Vim builds.
>
> The primary point of my original post is still to determine whether
> there are any impediments preventing Vim from using UTF-8 for the
> default 'encoding' and determining 'termencoding' from the user's
> locale. Anything else that would happen because of that is just icing
> on the cake.
>
I don't know how large integers are in zOS (with EBCDIC), I guess large
enough, since this is a Unix-like OS (but not Linux) for IBM mainframes,
but according to the latest os_390.txt (under |zOS-weaknesses|), that
port of Vim has no multibyte support. However the zOS port of Vim is
apparently a port made by IBM software engineers in their spare time,
"just for fun because they liked Vim", and I don't know how active it
might still be. Bram might know, but don't ask IBM.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
Famous, adj.:
Conspicuously miserable.
-- Ambrose Bierce
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
