Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >>>>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| Lars> _() and B_() is another thing. B_() will certainly produce
| Lars> docstring. Quite possible that will also be the case for _().
|
| This would be fine. Actually it would be nice for the parts of code
| that are not too close to the inner working of LyX to be made ignorant
| of what the actual data encoding is.
I am not quite sure that is even possible. (completely that is.)
Especially since we have a lot of "foostring" code that will have
ascii as encoding... (char const *) Sure we could use L"foostring" but
that would give us something unknown... (wchar_t const *), most ofthen
unicode... but what kind? (UCS-2 or UCS-4)
A lot of code will not have to know the encoding of the strings it
works on, esp. as docstring is more used. But in a lot of smallish
places knowledge in some way is requred.
Note that a conversion ascii -> ucs-4 is super easy... (latin1 ->
ucs-4 for that matter.)
--
Lgb
