Matt Seitz wrote:
"Brian Dessent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ariel Burbaickij wrote:
question: what is the status of utf-8 patch fo cygwin? Is it
You can find all the details in the mailing list archives.
<http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2006-q3/msg00014.html>
endorsed/supported?
It was submitted and rejected on technical grounds, which means sadly
it's not supported here.
The explanation I saw for the rejection was "...it should just be a
wholesale replacement, not a bunch of wrappers around existing functions."
It's now a year later. Is there an expectation that the "wholesale
replacement" or another solution is coming soon? What would be the harm in
adopting the current solution for now? Is this a case of "the perfect is
the enemy of the good"?
No. It's more like the "the limited hack is the enemy of future progress".
It should be _a_little_ easier to implement something maintainable with
1.7 code (in CVS), since Win9x support is no longer a requirement.
--
Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd. (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746
_____________________________________________________________________
A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
