Isn't some formality in these Unicode discussions called for? Use of everyday language to express things which can only be properly expressed and tested through source code is very confusing.
Consider these few sentences by Mattias >>>> It depends. There are two codepages. The real one and the one you tell the compiler. If you tell the compiler that the string literal is 8-bit system codepage, it will copy it without conversion to the binary. Otherwise it converts it to UTF-16 >>>> How do you know what the "real" codepage is at runtime or compile time, as opposed to "the one you tell the compiler"? Is there some macro that can print out which codepages is active at some stage in the compilation or at runtime? Can codepages be switched around at various stages in the compilation? Being an English speaker and writing software for English speakers only, these are issues I have never had to deal with and hopefully, never will, which is just wishful thinking, but I think that all these discussions must be accompanied by code and use cases whch explain them better. I have been looking in these Unicode discussion threads and I am none the wiser after all these years. There must be some test suites in FPC and Lazarus which cover the issues being raised in these discussions. Wouldn't those be a better starting point? Unicode discussions are leading me to appreciate Edsger Dijkstra more and more. ;) -- Frank Church ======================= http://devblog.brahmancreations.com
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
