Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
| > | >>>>>> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | > Abdelrazak> I really think we should get rid of iconv.
| > | > We are going to need iconv anyway to convert characters to iso-8859-x
| > | > and friends for latex output.
| > | | By the way, if we are going to encapsulate Qt unicode table we
| > could
| > | as well encapsulate QString conversion facilities including all 8bit
| > | locales:
| > Using Qt for something does not imply using it for everything.
| > And if we can easily stay away and use more widespread/portable
| > libs/code then we should do that.
|
| I am not sure iconv is any more portable than Qt. But even if so, Qt
| API is way more simpler than iconv API and I care about simplicity.
Who has said that we must stay with iconv?
(for external->internal, and internal->frontend usage)
And the "complicated" iconv api is easily wrapped up anyway...
--
Lgb
