> So I'm looking at the trouble with building CLucene 2 and the first > snag seems to hinge around the helper functions we use - > lucene_utf8towcs and lucene_wcstoutf8 and the like. These are still > present in CLucene 2, but they are not exposed through a public > header. As I see it, we can either choose to add their signatures to > our own headers when CLucene 2 is detected and move on with it, or we > can appropriate their entire implementation of the functionality and > rename it as sword_utf8towcs and the like provided the licenses allow > us to do so. Anyone have a firm opinion on the better path to take? >
Wouldn't this be very close to the UTF8 to UTF16 conversion that I posted the other day? If so, we already have a filter that can do this. Matthew _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: [email protected] http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
