Re: [dev] [st] wide characters

From: <random832_AT_fastmail.us>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:21:48 -0400

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013, at 10:58, Martti K├╝hne wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Random832 <random832_AT_fastmail.us> wrote:
> > Okay, but why not work with a unicode code point as an int?
>
> -1 from me.
> It is utter madness to waste 32 (64 on x86_64) bits for a single
> glyph.

A. current usage is char[4]

B. int is 32 bits on x86_64. There's no I in LP64.

> According to a quick google those chars can become as wide as 6
> bytes,

No, they can't. I have no idea what your source on this is.

> and believe me you don't want that, as long as there are
> mblen(3) / mbrlen(3)...

I don't know how these functions are relevant to your argument.
Received on Mon Apr 15 2013 - 20:21:48 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Apr 15 2013 - 20:24:11 CEST