Re: question about Unicode

[Philippe Lhoste <PhiLho@...>]

David Burgess a écrit :
> Mike Pall wrote:
> > The recipe for portability is to ignore the locale and do
> > everything in UTF-8 internally (e.g. for string handling). Only
> > convert at the boundaries to/from the 'widest' API available
> > (e.g. for file I/O or GUIs).
>
> I have used this scheme and it works well for file names. I
> used MultiByteToWideChar() just prior to file name usage.
> The only place it presents some overhead is in directory iterators.

Yes, I was about to point out these functions:
MultiByteToWideChar 
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/intl/unicode_17si.asp>
WideCharToMultiByte 
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/intl/unicode_2bj9.asp>
They seems to be the canonical way to do conversions between various 
locales, UTF-8 (and even UTF-7) and UTF-16 (native Windows Unicode).

--
Philippe Lhoste
--  (near) Paris -- France
--  http://Phi.Lho.free.fr
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --