Re: bug#7948: 16-bit wchar_t on Windows and Cygwin

2011-02-03 Thread Ulf Zibis
Hi, I think there is a kind of similar bug in discussion on GNU: bug#7960: [PATCH] fmt: fix formatting multibyte text (bug #7372) -Ulf Am 02.02.2011 18:51, schrieb Paul Eggert: On 02/02/11 03:29, Bruno Haible wrote: - Define a type 'wwchar_t' on all platforms, equivalent to uint32_t

Re: bug#7948: 16-bit wchar_t on Windows and Cygwin

2011-02-02 Thread Andy Koppe
On 2 February 2011 18:57, Bruno Haible wrote: > Hi Paul, > >> >   - Define a type 'wwchar_t' on all platforms, equivalent to uint32_t >> >     on Windows platforms and to 'wchar_t' otherwise. >> >> As a minor point, would it be OK to call this type >> 'xchar_t' instead?  'x' is the successor to 'w'

Re: bug#7948: 16-bit wchar_t on Windows and Cygwin

2011-02-02 Thread Bruno Haible
Hi Paul, > > - Define a type 'wwchar_t' on all platforms, equivalent to uint32_t > > on Windows platforms and to 'wchar_t' otherwise. > > As a minor point, would it be OK to call this type > 'xchar_t' instead? 'x' is the successor to 'w', after all, > and it can be thought of as an abbrevi

Re: bug#7948: 16-bit wchar_t on Windows and Cygwin

2011-02-02 Thread Paul Eggert
On 02/02/11 03:29, Bruno Haible wrote: > - Define a type 'wwchar_t' on all platforms, equivalent to uint32_t > on Windows platforms and to 'wchar_t' otherwise. As a minor point, would it be OK to call this type 'xchar_t' instead? 'x' is the successor to 'w', after all, and it can be thought