> Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>
> [..some of my thoughts..]
>
> this suits a construct I saw somewhere:
>
> type
>SomeString = type String(CP_KOI8);
This isn't the case with florian's type?. Because the first copy from a
source with an other encoding would force it to the encoding of the source
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
[..some of my thoughts..]
this suits a construct I saw somewhere:
type
SomeString = type String(CP_KOI8);
Marc
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-
> Mattias G?rtner wrote:
> example you could tell it that all strings should be utf-8 encoded. Of
> course, you get into trouble if some user plays unfair but you could
> still protect your code with some EnforceUTF8Encoding. It's exactly the
See earlier mail. Tiburon code shouldn't need mods. Tha
Mattias Gärtner wrote:
> Zitat von Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Paul Ishenin wrote:
>>>
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> You can still do C:=S[i]. What you cannot do is
>
> P:=PChar(S);
> While (P^<>#0) do
>
Zitat von Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Paul Ishenin wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> >>> You can still do C:=S[i]. What you cannot do is
> >>>
> >>> P:=PChar(S);
> >>> While (P^<>#0) do
> >>>SomeByteSizedOperatio
On Tuesday 01 July 2008 17.06:34 Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Paul Ishenin wrote:
> >> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> >>> You can still do C:=S[i]. What you cannot do is
> >>>
> >>> P:=PChar(S);
> >>> While (P^<>#0) do
> >>>SomeByteSizedOperatio
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
> I think you can still do the byte-size operations this way:
>
> ForceEncoding(S, iso-)
> P:=PChar(S);
> While (P^<>#0) do
> SomeByteSizedOperation;
>
> Similarly for any other code supposing an encoding.
Absolutely.
Michael.
_
I think you can still do the byte-size operations this way:
ForceEncoding(S, iso-)
P:=PChar(S);
While (P^<>#0) do
SomeByteSizedOperation;
Similarly for any other code supposing an encoding.
--
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
___
fpc-pascal maillist
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Paul Ishenin wrote:
>
>> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>>> You can still do C:=S[i]. What you cannot do is
>>>
>>> P:=PChar(S);
>>> While (P^<>#0) do
>>>SomeByteSizedOperation;
>>>
>> Why you cannot? PChar(S) should represent S as raw byt
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Paul Ishenin wrote:
> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> > You can still do C:=S[i]. What you cannot do is
> >
> > P:=PChar(S);
> > While (P^<>#0) do
> >SomeByteSizedOperation;
> >
> Why you cannot? PChar(S) should represent S as raw bytes. If you know what you
> are doi
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
You can still do C:=S[i]. What you cannot do is
P:=PChar(S);
While (P^<>#0) do
SomeByteSizedOperation;
Why you cannot? PChar(S) should represent S as raw bytes. If you know
what you are doing - it will not harm. In other case, if you corrupt the
string then
Marco van de Voort wrote:
>> Marco van de Voort wrote:
>>>
>> If compiler magic is at work, wouldn't all this reduce to s[1] giving
>> the first char no matter the char size?
>
> Where does the "magic" gets its information is my point.
I described this already in detail in my first mail: jus
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Jeff Wormsley wrote:
> > > is defined as char, it gets converted to a standard 0-255 value, but c
> > > could
> > > be defined as FlorianChar and be the native char size. Or am I smoking
> > > crack?
> >
> > No, you unders
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Jeff Wormsley wrote:
> > is defined as char, it gets converted to a standard 0-255 value, but c could
> > be defined as FlorianChar and be the native char size. Or am I smoking
> > crack?
>
> No, you understand it correct.
>
> Obviously, with Florian's type, simple low-lev
> Marco van de Voort wrote:
> >
> If compiler magic is at work, wouldn't all this reduce to s[1] giving
> the first char no matter the char size?
Where does the "magic" gets its information is my point.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
> > > I don't see what is difficult about Florians proposition.
> > > On the contrary, it is the simplest possible solution,
> > > and quite elegant in my eyes.
> >
> > To be honest, I f
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Jeff Wormsley wrote:
>
> Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > I don't understand how this can work, how can I have a compiletime solution
> > for a runtime problem?
> >
> > procedure mystringproc (s:FlorianUnicodeString);
> >
> > begin
> > if encodingof(s)=utf-16 then
> > beg
Marco van de Voort wrote:
I don't understand how this can work, how can I have a compiletime solution
for a runtime problem?
procedure mystringproc (s:FlorianUnicodeString);
begin
if encodingof(s)=utf-16 then
begin
// utf-16 code here with shiftsize 2 [] needed
end
else
b
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
> > I don't see what is difficult about Florians proposition.
> > On the contrary, it is the simplest possible solution,
> > and quite elegant in my eyes.
>
> To be honest, I flabbergasted t
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
> I did some googling and they don't support unicode filenames. So we
> are back to zero systems using this method again =)
Actually I think that Carbon uses a system very similar to the one
proposed by Florian. The string is an opaque t
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> C/C++ support the native encoding on all platforms.
I did some googling and they don't support unicode filenames. So we
are back to zero systems using this method again =)
http://www.google.com/search?q=C%2B%2B+unico
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
> I don't see what is difficult about Florians proposition.
> On the contrary, it is the simplest possible solution,
> and quite elegant in my eyes.
To be honest, I flabbergasted that the two of you agreed on such a runtime
construct. It goe
> >> > It is just that on unix, the fileroutines will be defined as utf8string
> >> So you are going to convert in non utf8 unix?
> >
> > Maybe I should have said "in the native encoding" then. So if the it's a
> > utf-16 unix it will be utf-16. In principle at least. We will have to see
> > how t
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Because using utf-16 on linux is very unnatural, same for utf-8 on
> > windows. Platforms like go32 even don't have any unicode. Coding
> > platform independen
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > platform independent but fast applications is really ugly having fixed
> > types.
>
> Well, then you mean that it requires conversion in some platforms
> rather then it not being cross-platform.
>
> What I am trying
>> > It is just that on unix, the fileroutines will be defined as utf8string
>> So you are going to convert in non utf8 unix?
>
> Maybe I should have said "in the native encoding" then. So if the it's a
> utf-16 unix it will be utf-16. In principle at least. We will have to see
> how this fares wi
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because using utf-16 on linux is very unnatural, same for utf-8 on
> windows. Platforms like go32 even don't have any unicode. Coding
> platform independent but fast applications is really ugly having fixed
> types.
Well
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My is having both an UTF8string and a UTF16string, on all platforms that
> > support
> > unicode. So I don't get this remark.
>
> Unless I understood your proposal
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Why not just introduce a set of utf-16 routines with utf16string type
>>> like the new Delphi?
>> Because it's not cross platform.
>
> Why isn't is cross-platform?
>
Because using
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't like the runtime nature. At all. I want to be able to say "hey look,
> > I've a bunch of units here, and they only accept utf16, (e.g. because they
> > were
> > ported Tiburon code). Convert if necessary"
>
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My is having both an UTF8string and a UTF16string, on all platforms that
> support
> unicode. So I don't get this remark.
Unless I understood your proposal wrong it involves a TMarcoString
which will be declared like
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't like the runtime nature. At all. I want to be able to say "hey look,
> I've a bunch of units here, and they only accept utf16, (e.g. because they
> were
> ported Tiburon code). Convert if necessary"
Tiburon co
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why not just introduce a set of utf-16 routines with utf16string type
>> like the new Delphi?
>
> Because it's not cross platform.
Why isn't is cross-platform?
--
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
__
Ok a quick pointwise comment then.
> I read most of the discussion and I think there is no way around a
> string type containing an encoding field. First, it allows also to
> support non utf encodings or utf-32 encoding. Having the encoding field
> does not mean that all target support all encodi
> Why not just introduce a set of utf-16 routines with utf16string type
> like the new Delphi?
>
> This proposal is at least better then the one from Marco
My is having both an UTF8string and a UTF16string, on all platforms that support
unicode. So I don't get this remark.
It is just that on uni
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
> Why not just introduce a set of utf-16 routines with utf16string type
> like the new Delphi?
Because it's not cross platform.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mai
Why not just introduce a set of utf-16 routines with utf16string type
like the new Delphi?
This proposal is at least better then the one from Marco as we at
least can get the encoding somehow, but is still inconvenient for
cross-platform software.
--
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
_
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> Marco van de Voort wrote:
> >> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> >>
> >>> I read most of the discussion and I think there is no way around a
> >>> string type containing an encoding field.
> >> [cut]
> >>
> >>> I know this approach conta
Marco van de Voort wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>>
>>> I read most of the discussion and I think there is no way around a
>>> string type containing an encoding field.
>> [cut]
>>
>>> I know this approach contains some hacks and requires some work but I
>>> think this is t
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>
> > I read most of the discussion and I think there is no way around a
> > string type containing an encoding field.
>
> [cut]
>
> > I know this approach contains some hacks and requires some work but I
> > think this is the only way to solve thin
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> I read most of the discussion and I think there is no way around a
> string type containing an encoding field.
[cut]
> I know this approach contains some hacks and requires some work but I
> think this is the only way to solve things for once and
41 matches
Mail list logo
