And so says Reed Hedges on 07/09/05 10:02...
> (1) it's an extra pain in the neck for developers (i.e.
> programmer-users) to worry about, especially coming from worlds like
> C and descendents where the notion of non-ascii character sets are a
> very recent addition and not a natural part of the language
I'd agree, if we were talking about C. But we're talking about C++.
You can just have different setProperty or whatever methods that get
single-byte std::string, and multibyte... eh... what's the class for
that? :-) whatever.
Oooh, interesting thought. Would types and contextual names be allowed
to be unicode too?
> and (2) if we add the extra "encoding" field, then we can put off
> actually transitioning to unicode (or whatever) by saying that
> currently the only valid encoding is ascii.
Is that worth the trouble? If we're not ready to go unicode, just don't
change the protocol yet.
best,
Lalo Martins
--
So many of our dreams at first seem impossible,
then they seem improbable, and then, when we
summon the will, they soon become inevitable.
--
http://www.exoweb.net/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GNU: never give up freedom http://www.gnu.org/
_______________________________________________
vos-d mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
