On 11 Nov 2009, at 10:37, Michael Schnell wrote:
Of course that is true. So IMHO (at least) theses encoding types
should
be supported:
Please read this document first: http://edn.embarcadero.com/article/38980
- RawDWordString
- RawWordString (handled like good old WideStrings ?(*) )
- RawByteString (handled like good old Strings ?(*) )
RawWordString and RawDWordString don't make any sense. All Strings
with 32 bit elements are UTF-32. Those with 16 bit elements can't be
UTF-16 big or little endian, or UCS-2, but I can't see why any
programmer would want a routine to accept strings in any of those
formats but not in any other format. Normally, you'd pick one of those
(e.g., utf16string) and be done with it. E.g., MSEGui could perfectly
use utf16string everywhere (which would be equivalent to the current
unicodestring except for the extra 4/8 bytes), and it would work
pretty much the same as it does today.
Jonas
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
