Re: Support for Windows unicode paths

[David Given <dg@...>]

Alex Queiroz wrote:
[...]
>      UTF-8 is best for serialisation (writing text to disk, to socket
> etc.). For in-memory strings it makes a lot of algorithms harder.
> UCS-2 was a bad idea, but UTF-16 works perfectly well. UTF-32 is even
> better.

Not much, I'm afraid --- as each glyph can be comprised from multiple 
code points, having fixed-size code points doesn't help a great deal. 
Your algorithms still have to cope with variable-sized groups of code 
points. And if you're going to do that, you might as well use UTF-8 for 
its ASCII interoperability features.

--
┌─── ｄｇ＠ｃｏｗｌａｒｋ．ｃｏｍ ───── http://www.cowlark.com ─────
│
│ "They laughed at Newton. They laughed at Einstein. Of course, they
│ also laughed at Bozo the Clown." --- Carl Sagan