Brent Dax wrote: > > Jeff Goff: > # The mass of ICU code that's been added to Parrot. It's taking > > Have we determined that there are no programming language and > portablility issues yet? > > Are all the bits we need written in C? If not, we can't use it.
The core is C. Some frilly interface bits that we'll need to rewrite are in C++ so they don't matter. And even should most of it be in C++, ICU is an overall win. Somewhat lamentedly I point out that nobody *else* has stepped up to the plate to write all of the code we need to become Unicode compliant. ICU happens to have all that code and more. Should we need to rewrite C++ down to C, at least we have a code base to start from instead of making all of the Unicode mistakes ab initio. Whether or not this is in C++ is immaterial, as we need a Unicode library, and preferably one that's already made the mistakes we would and fixed them. > Does ICU handle Unix, Windows, VMS and Palm OS? If not, we can't use > it. (I figure if it handles those four, it's up to anything. :^) ) Well, we don't handle PalmOS right now anyway, so that's a moot point. It handles the other three, and as I pointed out in my last post defending ICU's use, it's even got build scripts for OS/400, so right now it's more portable than Parrot. That's good enough for me. -- Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
