[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Unicode and Guile
From: |
Kevin Ryde |
Subject: |
Re: Unicode and Guile |
Date: |
Mon, 03 Nov 2003 07:23:00 +1000 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:
>
> This has the advantage that ASCII characters up to 127 are
> represented the same. Of course, above that characters might take up to
> eight bytes, which means that all code that processes user-input strings
> has to be changed.
There'll be a compatibility question for SCM_STRING_CHARS I think.
Application C code may be using that expecting to see chars as 8 bits,
not some encoded form.
Not sure quite how bad this will be though. If people use strings to
hold raw 8-bit data from a socket or something then it's no doubt
pretty important to make sure they pass straight through, somehow.
There might be another question for SCM_CHAR. It's got 24 bits (if
I'm not mistaken), if that's not enough then changing the relevant
macros will break binary compatibility. (Not a terribly big deal, but
a bit annoying.)
- Re: Unicode and Guile,
Kevin Ryde <=
- Re: Unicode and Guile, Andy Wingo, 2003/11/03
- Re: Unicode and Guile, Tom Lord, 2003/11/03
- Re: Unicode and Guile, Andy Wingo, 2003/11/11
- Re: Unicode and Guile, Tom Lord, 2003/11/11
- Re: Unicode and Guile, Marius Vollmer, 2003/11/11
- Re: Unicode and Guile, Tom Lord, 2003/11/11
- Re: Unicode and Guile, Marius Vollmer, 2003/11/11