Summary on Re: [fpc-pascal] Unicode file routines proposal

Michael Van Canneyt michael at freepascal.org
Tue Jul 1 14:12:53 CEST 2008



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 contains some hacks and requires some work but I
> >>> think this is the only way to solve things for once and ever.
> >> I think it is the most promising and extensible proposal,
> >> so I'm all for it.
> > 
> > I read it shortly, and I still don't like it. I need more time to prepare a
> > reponse though.
> 
> Keep in mind in your response, that we want also handle other formats
> than utf-8 or utf-16 if needed :)

I think that if you put the encoding field at a negative offset, as length
for ansistrings, that this code should be relatively compatible to current
code if you assume that encoding=0 (or whatever tag value) means ansistring:
You just have an extra field; you could even make that 2 fields: in addition
to byte length, add character length: it should keep operations fast, as most 
conversions and other operations will end up with a character length of some 
kind anyway.

Michael.



More information about the fpc-pascal mailing list