On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 10:17 -0700, Colin D Bennett wrote: > Agreed, these are some concerns that would have to be worked out. > Perhaps it would be easier and better to use UTF-32 for internal > operations, to simplify random access to characters in strings, and > just use UTF-8 for external storage (i.e., disk files). I think Peter B is being cautious, ASCII -> UTF-8 should work due to the way Unicode was designed, even if we do have a lot of open-coded string parsers in the code. UTF-8 is what gEDA uses internally, and UTF-32 would be much more work to port to than just testing / fixing UTF-8 (which probably already works for 99.something% of the cases. -- Peter Clifton Electrical Engineering Division, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, 9, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!) Tel: +44 (0)1223 748328 - (Shared lab phone, ask for me)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user