Bernd Eckenfels, le Tue 11 Aug 2009 21:40:35 +0200, a écrit : > In article <20090811183800.ge5...@const.famille.thibault.fr> you wrote: > > Not necessarily. Any sane implementation should just use wchar_t > > Which could be UTF16 and therefore still has complicatd length semantics.
?? wchar_t may be 32 or 16bit (in which case it can't express unicode after U+FFFF), but it's still meant to have the simple length semantics. > And even with UTF32 there are combining characters. Which account for one character. Then there is a problem of rendering width of course, but as I said it's there anyway as soon as you have a font with varying letter widths, string manipulation don't pose any problem anyway. > But the length could be defined in code units - its just a question > how usefull it is. Of course. It's rarely useful to take into account character width yourself, unless you are rendering on a tty, but then speed usually doesn't matter and you can afford calling wcswidth() on your string as late as possible. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
