cpstrnew branch (was Re: [fpc-devel] Freepascal 2.4.0rc1 released)

Jonas Maebe jonas.maebe at elis.ugent.be
Wed Nov 11 10:52:53 CET 2009

On 11 Nov 2009, at 10:37, Michael Schnell wrote:

> Of course that is true. So IMHO (at least) theses encoding types  
> should
> be supported:

Please read this document first: http://edn.embarcadero.com/article/38980

> - RawDWordString
> - RawWordString (handled like good old WideStrings ?(*) )
> - RawByteString (handled like good old Strings ?(*) )

RawWordString and RawDWordString don't make any sense. All Strings  
with 32 bit elements are UTF-32. Those with 16 bit elements can't be  
UTF-16 big or little endian, or UCS-2, but I can't see why any  
programmer would want a routine to accept strings in any of those  
formats but not in any other format. Normally, you'd pick one of those  
(e.g., utf16string) and be done with it. E.g., MSEGui could perfectly  
use utf16string everywhere (which would be equivalent to the current  
unicodestring except for the extra 4/8 bytes), and it would work  
pretty much the same as it does today.


More information about the fpc-devel mailing list