Guillaume Munch wrote: > So, is the plan is to change char_type from wchar_t to uchar32_t in 2.3 > and use the syntax U"..." to directly define docstring literals? Do you > see any issues with this change? Then we do not need any conversion > method, we can just use docstring for all purposes when non-ASCII chars > are involved.
Actually I did not think that far, but yes, this is a very good idea. I don't think that there will be issues, this stuff is very well defined, and easy to implement for compiler vendors. Then we would finally get rid of the windows/linux differences (wchar_t vs. uint32_t for char_type) as well. > Now for the patch under discussion the plan become: > > 1/ wait for 2.3 > 2/ allow utf8 in translatable strings, using unicode literals. > 3/ use … instead of ... in the UI (as before) > > Does it make sense? I think so. Georg
