| Re: [AD] unicode proposal |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 17:34 +1100, Peter Wang wrote:
>
> I basically agree with your function lists.
>
I'll try to make a patch. Hard part will be changing all the code using
it.
> Later, I think I'd like to introduce explicit iterator types rather than
> bare pointers for ugetx (and give it a better name). Also if sticking
> with UTF-8 (or even UTF-16) there's no reason not to introduce backwards
> traversal.
Iterator types?
> The API is prone to buffer overflows and arbitrarily truncated strings
> due to the use of preallocated buffers. Probably the solution is
> dynamic allocation.
Or do we go even further and use something akin to
http://bstring.sourceforge.net/ ?
>
> An ISO-8859-1 converter could stay as it's purely a re-encoding.
>
Well, converting UTF8 to Latin1 simply will fail most of the time. I
guess we could replace missing letters with ?. No idea what our current
conversion functions do. Also 7-bit-ASCII and UTF-16 conversions
probably can stay. We just should stop somewhere, if someone needs
things like Latin2 or BIG5 they really should use an additional library
which can do a much better job (or go the easy way and keep everything
in UTF8 even if slightly less efficient).
--
Elias Pschernig <elias@xxxxxxxxxx>