On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 11:07:37AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
...
> From: Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Unicode (was Re: enormous)
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from Martin Vermeer at "May 4, 2001
> 11:02:41 am"
> To: Martin Vermeer &
John Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 03:50:37PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
| > On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 09:21:53AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
| > > > trickier. You'd basically have to convert from utf-8 to full Unicode
| > > > on-the-fly, as you displayed.
| > >
| > >
> A compromise solution would be to internally, and transparently,
> convert a "block" of text from UTF-8 to 32 bits representation and back.
I would not even look at this as a compromise. This should be the most
efficient approach in most circumstances.
> The size of the block? Uhhh... what ab
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Unicode (was Re: enormous)
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from John Weiss at "May 2, 2001
> 08:02:45 pm"
> To: John Weiss <[
> Actually, you'd just store it internally as a sequence of "char".
> Nothing complicated there.
It is pretty complicated. Just tell me in O(1) time at what physical
offset the n-th "logical" character sits.
I fear you have to scan the whole sequence...
UTF-8 is only appropriate for sequential,
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 03:50:37PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 09:21:53AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > > trickier. You'd basically have to convert from utf-8 to full Unicode
> > > on-the-fly, as you displayed.
> >
> > How expensive is this really? The correspondence be
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 09:21:53AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > Hmm... although it would save memory for those of us working primarily
> > with langauges that only use Latin-1 ASCII, it does make rendering
> > trickier. You'd basically have to convert from utf-8 to full Unicode
> > on-the-fly
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 23:01:06 -0400
> From: John Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Unicode (was Re: enormous)
> Mail-Followup-To: John Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 04:19:38PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
>
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | I thought the point of UTF-8 was that ASCII could be stored in 7-bit
> | values ?
>
> yes, but we do not really want to use utf-8 internally.
Hmm... although it would save memo
> After spending several days in reading Unicode and ICU
> (oss.software.ibm.com) documentation I think it will will be enough to
> use a 16bit word. The unicode standard
> defines 21 bit to be used for unicode characters. The UTF-16 encoding
> uses special encodings
> to use characters above
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |
Lars> > "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Lars> writes: | | Lars> You tell me... | | Lars> lazy initalization
Lars> would perhaps be easier to fint targets
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| Lars> You tell me...
|
| Lars> lazy initalization would perhaps be easier to fint targets for.
|
| Isn't the 4M value the size for all code+libraries we use? Are you
| sure th
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> You tell me...
Lars> lazy initalization would perhaps be easier to fint targets for.
Isn't the 4M value the size for all code+libraries we use? Are you
sure that there is so much data allocated? If I understand correctly
the
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| Lars> One thing... an initial runtime size of 4M with no documents
| Lars> loaded seems very large too me. I guess the only way to reduce
| Lars> this is to use more lazy loadin
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> One thing... an initial runtime size of 4M with no documents
Lars> loaded seems very large too me. I guess the only way to reduce
Lars> this is to use more lazy loading.
Lazy loading of what?
JMarc
Stephen Reindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | Wouldn't this have an enormous space impact on those of us who don't
| > | need it ?
|
| > enormous? no I don't think so.
| > Try to set LyXParagraph::value_type to int and see how large impact is
| > has.
Am 18.04.01, 16:19:38, schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes)
zum Thema enormous:
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | On 17 Apr 2001, Lars Gullik [iso-8859-1] Bjønnes wrote:
> |
> | > This is planned, except that wchar_t is 32 bit on most os's.
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 17 Apr 2001, Lars Gullik [iso-8859-1] Bjønnes wrote:
|
| > This is planned, except that wchar_t is 32 bit on most os's.
|
| Wouldn't this have an enormous space impact on those of us who don't
| need it ?
enormous? no I don
18 matches
Mail list logo
