Re: Support for Windows unicode paths

[Alex Queiroz <asandroq@...>]

Hallo,

On 7/23/09, David Given <dg@cowlark.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

     This is an interesting point. I and thought I had everything
figured out for my VM's text handling...
-- 
-alex
http://www.ventonegro.org/