Fwd: swprintf (Xcode issue)
Fwd: swprintf (Xcode issue)
- Subject: Fwd: swprintf (Xcode issue)
- From: "Clark Cox" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 13:07:01 -0700
Mistakenly sent privately instead of to the list.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Clark Cox <email@hidden>
Date: May 28, 2007 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: swprintf (Xcode issue)
To: Alexander von Below <email@hidden>
On 5/28/07, Alexander von Below <email@hidden> wrote:
Am 28.05.2007 um 21:32 schrieb glenn andreas:
>
> On May 28, 2007, at 1:50 PM, Alexander von Below wrote:
>
>> I fully subscribe to Andy Finnell's rant on his blog:
>> http://www.losingfight.com/blog/2006/07/28/wchar_t-unsafe-at-any-
>> size/
>>
>> Alex
>
> I prefer to follow what the Unicode standards say about this.
>
> There is no implicit encoding on wchar_t
At the risk of going off-topic ...
This is fully understood, and I believe the main point of Andy's pain
is exactly that: There is no standard.
As a corollary, our shared grief is: If you have the choice, why
chose the option that breaks a lot of people's code? As you yourself
point out, UTF-16 would not have been an invalid or illegal choice at
all.
Yes, UTF-16 is an invalid choice for wchar_t. The C standard requires
that each code-point be representable by a *single* wchar_t. Once
surrogate pairs were introduced into the mix, UTF-16 ceased to be a
valid choice.
In order to properly support Unicode, wchar_t must be at least 21-bits
wide. With this constraint, 32-bits is the perfect choice.
Well, OK, it keeps us busy. So I guess I should not complain ;)
--
Clark S. Cox III
email@hidden
--
Clark S. Cox III
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Xcode-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden