[lazarus] General Linux programming question

[John Margaglione]

Interestingly enough, Java deals ONLY with Unicode strings.  You can read 
and write ansi strings, but internally the String class is Unicode.  I 
happen to think that all-Unicode languages are great, but I happen to work 
for a Japanese-owned company, so I'm always under the threat of porting to 
extremely non-Western languages.

Would it be too much to make the FPC String class Unicode?  Are there good 
reasons to do this (not to do this)?  Personally I would like to be able to 
transparently use unicode (no translation function!).

John Margaglione


>From: Ove Kaaven <ovek at arcticnet.no>
>Reply-To: lazarus at miraclec.com
>To: lazarus at miraclec.com
>Subject: Re: [lazarus] General Linux programming question
>Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 05:43:09 +0200 (CEST)
>
>
>On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, d0hb0y wrote:
>
> > Does Linux have an equivalent to Microsoft's UNICODE support?  As a
> > programmer, I find the transitioning between UNICODE and ANSI strings 
>(in
> > Win32 Api calls) annoying.  Does this issue exist in linux (regardless 
>of
> > the programming language?).
>
>gtk+ 1.4 will have native Unicode support, the standard libc has e.g.
>mbs[r]towcs and wcs[r]tombs to convert between char* and wchar_t*. Also
>glibc2.1 is introducing Unicode versions of many standard libc functions,
>if compatibility with other/older libcs is not an issue. (Traditionally
>Unix systems didn't support Unicode, and is largely ASCII-based, the
>heritage of which *is* present in Linux, but GNU is aiming for the future
>with its Unicode-aware extensions.)
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>      To unsubscribe: mail lazarus-request at miraclec.com with
>                 "unsubscribe" as the Subject
>     archives at http://www.miraclec.com/list_archives/lazarus


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com