Re: Translating filenames for command line?
Re: Translating filenames for command line?
- Subject: Re: Translating filenames for command line?
- From: Rainer Brockerhoff <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:34:05 -0200
At 16:15 +0100 02/01/2002, Ondra Cada wrote:
>
RB> Well, it seems a silly oversight - for an OS that boasts of being
>
RB> Unicode-compatible - that constant strings are restricted to English
>
RB> ASCII, especially when when the OS itself uses ellipsis and other hi-bit
>
RB> characters. Depending on further comments here, I'll file a bug to have
>
RB> this changed to UTF-8. Interface Builder stores text as UTF-8, so I think
>
RB> they should be consistent.
>
>
I do agree that it might be nice sometimes. Myself, I would like to see just
>
\U<unicode> interpreted properly -- no need to mess with UTF8.
Well, \U (or is it \u?) would be very nice to have, but typing the actual character is always better. Imagine if we had to always type hex-equivalents into string constants, even for alphanumerical characters...
>
Don't forget
>
that the compiler and PB are just partners, *NOT* a monolithic package!
I agree with you regarding compilers, but PB and IB _are_ a monolithic package IMHO.
>
OTOH, as I've written to Rosyna, some special cases (like perhaps the
>
ellipsis) apart, there is really *no need* to use such constants. If it is
>
8-bit or more, it is almost always localizable; if it is localizable, it has
>
no right to sit in a code as a a constant.
Well, there are many useful, and widely used even in English, 8-bit characters - ellipsis, bullets, curly quotes, (c), (r), TM, and so forth. I think associating 8-bit with localizable isn't such a compelling argument.
>
I really don't know, but it even is possible that the oversight was
>
completely intentional, to discourage developers of using non-localizable
>
constants in code! Had I designed the thing, I would probably consider the
>
idea to be a nice one ;)))
I think it was merely the (unfortunately still common) bias of thinking that all programmers program in English, that all programs are first written in English and then "localized" for other languages, and that accents in other languages are superfluous anyway and can be left off while keeping the meaning intact :-). Granted that variables and keywords in C and derived languages use a restricted character set by definition, but string constants should not be artificially restricted.
>
RB> And I've tried to convert source files to Unicode, but the compiler
>
RB> definitely chokes on that - hundreds of error messages result. I wonder
>
RB> why Project Builder supports Unicode files at all, when the compiler
>
RB> doesn't?
>
>
Again, since the compiler has little to do with PB and vice versa. The PB
>
can be and is used with other compilers, and the compiler can be and is used
>
without PB.
You're right, it seems that .strings files (among others) can be Unicode. My mistake.
--
Rainer Brockerhoff <email@hidden>
Belo Horizonte, Brazil
"Originality is the art of concealing your sources."
http://www.brockerhoff.net/ (updated Dec. 2001)