Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #77357 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-29 01:06 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-12-02 09:58 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 210 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-29 01:06 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-11-29 02:01 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-29 03:31 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-29 00:09 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-29 00:22 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-11-29 14:31 -0500
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-11-29 23:51 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 01:21 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-30 00:41 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-30 03:16 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-29 08:28 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-29 02:54 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-29 16:30 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-28 23:53 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-29 02:23 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-29 00:30 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 01:33 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-30 13:54 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 02:03 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-30 14:15 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 02:34 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-30 14:42 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 04:16 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-29 20:20 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 04:34 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-30 17:09 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 06:17 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-30 19:44 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-29 23:36 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 07:39 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-30 13:56 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-12-01 09:17 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 13:40 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 00:34 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-03 16:03 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-29 23:07 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 08:20 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-29 23:40 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 08:48 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-30 20:52 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-30 21:04 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-30 00:34 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-30 03:50 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-30 12:16 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-30 06:11 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-30 13:23 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-30 13:18 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-30 13:23 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-30 22:32 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-30 15:10 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-30 21:05 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-01 12:38 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-01 14:43 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-01 12:09 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-02 09:14 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-01 12:27 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-02 10:14 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-01 18:01 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-01 20:41 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-01 12:53 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-01 21:32 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-01 13:55 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-04 10:30 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-01 18:46 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Say, what? <<nothing@nowhere.nohow>> - 2015-12-01 14:07 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-01 23:54 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Say, what? <<nothing@nowhere.nohow>> - 2015-12-01 17:13 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-01 09:08 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-01 20:02 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-01 17:03 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-02 00:17 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-01 16:53 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-01 21:17 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 09:37 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-12-02 10:59 -0500
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-02 17:43 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 13:22 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-03 09:32 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-02 21:12 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-03 10:36 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-02 22:00 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 17:55 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-02 17:04 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-03 01:11 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-03 14:19 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 23:16 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-03 00:54 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-03 04:07 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-03 18:31 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-12-03 13:59 -0500
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-03 19:45 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-03 14:38 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-03 22:43 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-03 12:14 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-03 12:38 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-03 13:19 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-03 05:54 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-04 10:50 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-03 14:26 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-03 09:19 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-03 16:25 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-03 15:33 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-03 16:47 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-03 16:54 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-03 09:32 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-03 18:53 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 19:00 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-04 14:07 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 18:41 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-05 16:09 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-12-05 21:15 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-06 12:35 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-03 09:02 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-03 19:12 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-03 16:58 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-03 15:47 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-03 14:51 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-03 16:50 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-04 10:55 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-03 08:56 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-03 05:24 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-04 08:49 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-03 07:07 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-03 10:27 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-03 09:01 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 10:16 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 01:21 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-03 16:42 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-04 11:15 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 01:57 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-08 09:08 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-04 09:44 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-04 15:58 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-04 11:43 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-04 10:56 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-04 11:20 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-04 15:24 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-04 09:30 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-04 15:52 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-04 09:07 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-04 09:53 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-04 10:56 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-04 15:04 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-04 21:32 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-04 13:38 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-04 16:13 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-04 16:21 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-04 19:10 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-04 19:16 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-04 21:19 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-05 12:44 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-06 09:01 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-06 12:34 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-06 18:32 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-07 10:43 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-07 10:02 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-05 03:53 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-05 09:39 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-12-05 18:36 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-05 12:26 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-05 11:36 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> - 2015-12-06 16:42 +0530
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-06 03:59 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-07 02:17 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-12-07 07:33 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-12-03 03:57 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 00:58 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-03 01:34 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-03 11:38 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-03 14:09 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-03 10:10 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-03 08:28 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-03 21:33 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-02 21:47 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 16:05 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-02 14:12 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-02 22:47 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-03 14:00 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-03 01:38 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-03 02:20 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-04 10:40 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-12-03 02:42 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-12-01 20:48 -0500
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-02 12:08 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-02 04:21 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-02 14:05 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-12-04 01:31 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-02 14:23 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-02 08:00 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-02 16:49 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-02 11:50 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-02 20:02 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-02 12:31 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-03 01:43 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-12-02 09:21 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-12-02 07:29 -0500
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-02 05:47 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 11:03 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-12-02 14:16 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-03 09:56 +1300
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 13:49 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-12-02 22:11 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-12-02 15:06 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-30 22:14 +0000
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-29 23:03 -0600
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 06:26 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-30 00:39 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-30 01:57 -0800
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-11-29 15:32 +0100
Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 09:58 -0800
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-05 11:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <55050445-8b17-47c3-89fc-81afca06702f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #77903 |
On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 6:26:36 PM UTC, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 05-Dec-15 05:53, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > Indeed. I'm guessing that's why I'm having so much difficulty; someone > who actually worked with an RTL script on a daily basis could probably > get it all right on the first try. > I worked in Israel a few years back (yikes). Basically you just switch the computer into "Hebrew" mode and you're typing Hebrew. However I didn't use it much, because all the computer work was in English, and I'm not good enough to use Hebrew for casual chat. I never tried Hebrew source.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-06 16:42 +0530 |
| Message-ID | <87wpsrvnjh.fsf@rudiments.goosenet.in> |
| In reply to | #77911 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > I worked in Israel a few years back (yikes). Basically you just switch > the computer into "Hebrew" mode and you're typing Hebrew. However I > didn't use it much, because all the computer work was in English, and > I'm not good enough to use Hebrew for casual chat. > > I never tried Hebrew source. This possibility of Unicode alarms me. I mean, for better or worse, English is the lingua franca of the computing sciences. Unicode allows that this may no longer be the case, doesn't it? Instead, couldn't we end up with no standard language for the communication of the whole field? Perhaps I'm overthinking. -- Udyant Wig
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-06 03:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <311d33d2-3600-44ab-b369-0de84e245ab4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #77959 |
On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 11:13:11 AM UTC, Udyant Wig wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > I worked in Israel a few years back (yikes). Basically you just switch > > the computer into "Hebrew" mode and you're typing Hebrew. However I > > didn't use it much, because all the computer work was in English, and > > I'm not good enough to use Hebrew for casual chat. > > > > I never tried Hebrew source. > > This possibility of Unicode alarms me. I mean, for better or worse, > English is the lingua franca of the computing sciences. Unicode > allows that this may no longer be the case, doesn't it? Instead, > couldn't we end up with no standard language for the communication of > the whole field? > > Perhaps I'm overthinking. > Yes, it is a very real risk. I've already had to deal with C source containing comments in Chinese. They're totally meaningless to me. In another European language you can usually get the gist even if you don't fully understand it. When I was doing my PhD finding a Chinese person wasn't a big problem, but now I'm back in the workplace, for a small company, it's much more difficult.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 02:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ucfa6btk8lv8d4v1nnjimirtf6nu0o3tag@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #77959 |
On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 16:42:18 +0530, Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> wrote: >Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> I worked in Israel a few years back (yikes). Basically you just switch >> the computer into "Hebrew" mode and you're typing Hebrew. However I >> didn't use it much, because all the computer work was in English, and >> I'm not good enough to use Hebrew for casual chat. >> >> I never tried Hebrew source. > > This possibility of Unicode alarms me. I mean, for better or worse, > English is the lingua franca of the computing sciences. Unicode > allows that this may no longer be the case, doesn't it? Instead, > couldn't we end up with no standard language for the communication of > the whole field? > > Perhaps I'm overthinking. People have been coding in their native languages for decades, although with the standard English keywords used in most languages. For something like C, with a modest number of short keywords, that's not too bad - the programmers just have to learn what those few dozen keywords mean by rote, it gets more than a bit ugly in something as chatty as Cobol. So I've see Cobol code full of stuff like "ADD IMPOT TO PRIX." (of course this being Cobol, the actual variable names tended to be much longer). Adding new characters to the mix just extends that a bit, and I don't see how adding the missing accent really makes my life any tougher (except by making me drag out my cheat-sheet on how to type accented characters on a US keyboard!). Admittedly if you turn that into a language that used a character set I can't even assign some mnemonic device to, I would have more difficulty, but at that point how much a few recognizable keywords in a sea of unrecognizable squiggles help?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-07 07:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1e597851-ef9a-4262-ad57-3051d6529ba6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #78032 |
On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 2:16:36 AM UTC-6, robert...@yahoo.com wrote: > Admittedly if you turn that into a language that used a character set > I can't even assign some mnemonic device to, I would have more > difficulty, but at that point how much a few recognizable keywords in > a sea of unrecognizable squiggles help? Being able to recognize whether two identifiers are the same or not can be pretty important, and I expect that many people would find that task much easier with a set of 63 glyphs than with a set of thousands, many of which are rendered pixel-perfect identically in many fonts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 03:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2b8b2a04-07d5-42b2-840c-e5bfe8710f49@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #77690 |
W dniu czwartek, 3 grudnia 2015 02:11:35 UTC+1 użytkownik Bart napisał: > On 02/12/2015 23:55, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > On 02-Dec-15 16:00, BartC wrote: > > >> But if you want an example that is more realistic, how about an > >> in-place reversal of a string? Try that in UTF8. (And by reversal I > >> mean, if original string is printed out, the new string will have the > >> visible glyphs in the reverse order.) > > > > OTOH, try the same in UTF-32; if you just reverse the code points, you > > will find that "spóons" becomes "snóops" rather than "snoóps". If you > > can solve _that_ problem (which is shockingly difficult), then dealing > > with UTF-8 encoding (and preventing "sno��ops") should be trivial. > > ["spóons" is actually the sequence (s,p,o, 0x301, o, n, s) where code > 0x301 applies an accent to the previous character.] > > This is a perfect example of how over-the-top Unicode has become. > Instead of being a character set, it's turned into a mark-up language! ye and that is obviously wrong, if there is a character x and a accent sign a with an accent is not a separate character and should not be ancoden in unicode (nor as a sperate character, nor as a two characters) (at least untill they find a good reason to that but i a bit doubt in that - if they need such markup alanguage some may build that on top of unicode))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-04 00:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n3qkul$1ta$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #77681 |
On 03.12.2015 00:55, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 02-Dec-15 16:00, BartC wrote: >> My original example was to exchange first and last letters, but the >> above was sufficient to show how the simplest operation becomes >> fraught with complications with UTF8 (actually this introduces >> another difficulty, that of having to possibly shift all the >> in-between characters). >> >> But if you want an example that is more realistic, how about an >> in-place reversal of a string? Try that in UTF8. (And by reversal I >> mean, if original string is printed out, the new string will have the >> visible glyphs in the reverse order.) > > OTOH, try the same in UTF-32; if you just reverse the code points, you > will find that "spóons" becomes "snóops" rather than "snoóps". If you > can solve _that_ problem (which is shockingly difficult), then dealing > with UTF-8 encoding (and preventing "sno��ops") should be trivial. Well, I assume UTF-8 has the same characters available as UTF-32, so it's still UTF-32 that is one notch easier to process than UTF-8. As for reversing a word; what is the rules for reversing a word? Is it simply reversing the characters? What would a plausible use of word reversal be? -Morten
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 01:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87egf45n8g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #77672 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
<snip>
> But if you want an example that is more realistic, how about an
> in-place reversal of a string? Try that in UTF8. (And by reversal I
> mean, if original string is printed out, the new string will have the
> visible glyphs in the reverse order.)
Putting aside the issues that crop up with full Unicode support (they've
been mentioned already) and this considering only the problem of
reversing the encoding (which is what I think you meant by "try that in
UTF-8"), it's not particularly hard:
void reverse(char *str, char *end)
{
while (str + 1 < end) {
char t = *str;
*str++ = *--end;
*end = t;
}
}
static char utf8_extra_len[] = {
[0xC0] = 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,
[0xD0] = 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,
[0xE0] = 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2,
[0xF0] = 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5
};
void utf8_reverse(char *str)
{
char *end = strchr(str, 0);
reverse(str, end);
while (end > str) {
int len = utf8_extra_len[(unsigned char)end[-1]] + 1;
end -= len;
reverse(end, end + len);
}
}
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 11:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3p9g3$987$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77692 |
On 03/12/2015 01:34, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> <snip>
>> But if you want an example that is more realistic, how about an
>> in-place reversal of a string? Try that in UTF8. (And by reversal I
>> mean, if original string is printed out, the new string will have the
>> visible glyphs in the reverse order.)
>
> Putting aside the issues that crop up with full Unicode support (they've
> been mentioned already) and this considering only the problem of
> reversing the encoding (which is what I think you meant by "try that in
> UTF-8"),
Well, reversing the ordering of what most people think of as the
'characters'.
> it's not particularly hard:
>
> void reverse(char *str, char *end)
> {
> while (str + 1 < end) {
> char t = *str;
> *str++ = *--end;
> *end = t;
> }
> }
>
> static char utf8_extra_len[] = {
> [0xC0] = 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,
> [0xD0] = 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,
> [0xE0] = 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2,
> [0xF0] = 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5
> };
>
> void utf8_reverse(char *str)
> {
> char *end = strchr(str, 0);
> reverse(str, end);
> while (end > str) {
> int len = utf8_extra_len[(unsigned char)end[-1]] + 1;
> end -= len;
> reverse(end, end + len);
> }
> }
>
I tried this without much confidence, but it worked! (On my test string
with two multi-byte characters.)
I think I can just about understand the approach used too.
Still, it is harder than with an ordinary 8-bit string. And with a
slightly different requirement, then you might need to start again,
while the 8-bit version could only need tweaking.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 14:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87vb8f4oac.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #77724 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 03/12/2015 01:34, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> <snip>
>>> But if you want an example that is more realistic, how about an
>>> in-place reversal of a string? Try that in UTF8. (And by reversal I
>>> mean, if original string is printed out, the new string will have the
>>> visible glyphs in the reverse order.)
>>
>> Putting aside the issues that crop up with full Unicode support (they've
>> been mentioned already) and this considering only the problem of
>> reversing the encoding (which is what I think you meant by "try that in
>> UTF-8"),
>
> Well, reversing the ordering of what most people think of as the
> 'characters'.
>
>> it's not particularly hard:
>>
>> void reverse(char *str, char *end)
>> {
>> while (str + 1 < end) {
>> char t = *str;
>> *str++ = *--end;
>> *end = t;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> static char utf8_extra_len[] = {
>> [0xC0] = 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,
>> [0xD0] = 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,
>> [0xE0] = 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2,
>> [0xF0] = 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5
>> };
>>
>> void utf8_reverse(char *str)
>> {
>> char *end = strchr(str, 0);
>> reverse(str, end);
>> while (end > str) {
>> int len = utf8_extra_len[(unsigned char)end[-1]] + 1;
>> end -= len;
>> reverse(end, end + len);
>> }
>> }
>>
>
> I tried this without much confidence, but it worked!
Not a ringing endorsement, but so be it!
<snip>
> I think I can just about understand the approach used too.
Reverse the bytes, then reverse any contiguous multi-byte sequences.
> Still, it is harder than with an ordinary 8-bit string.
Yes, of course. If your plan is just get everyone to say that some
things are a bit harder with UTF-8 then I think you are wasting your
time in that if some people have not yet signed the pledge it is only
because it is self-evident.
But you seem to see it as a problem forced on you -- "and now we are
expected to handle a variable length encoding!" you said elsewhere as if
it were being imposed by some politically-correct politburo.
UTF-8 is not a problem, it's a solution. Reversing a string is harder,
yes, but writing Wikipedia is easier; strlen will "lie", but fopen and
thousand other interface functions don't need to be re-written. Embrace
it!
<snip>
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 10:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n3ppcs$7fq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77737 |
On 03-Dec-15 08:09, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > UTF-8 is not a problem, it's a solution. Reversing a string is > harder, yes, but writing Wikipedia is easier; strlen will "lie", but > fopen and thousand other interface functions don't need to be > re-written. Embrace it! That "lie" depends on what you think strlen() measures; if you want the number of bytes needed to hold a string (not including the terminator), it tells you the truth, but if you want to know the number of grapheme clusters a user perceives, it would need to contain all the complexity of a fully internationalized rendering engine and perhaps even the context of the string, which is obviously absurd. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 08:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a5cd5c3e-a67e-4e96-bbf1-2d4c9772307e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #77759 |
On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 4:10:38 PM UTC, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 03-Dec-15 08:09, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > UTF-8 is not a problem, it's a solution. Reversing a string is > > harder, yes, but writing Wikipedia is easier; strlen will "lie", but > > fopen and thousand other interface functions don't need to be > > re-written. Embrace it! > > That "lie" depends on what you think strlen() measures; if you want the > number of bytes needed to hold a string (not including the terminator), > it tells you the truth, but if you want to know the number of grapheme > clusters a user perceives, it would need to contain all the complexity > of a fully internationalized rendering engine and perhaps even the > context of the string, which is obviously absurd. > No, there are rules for grapheme clusters. They're not simple, but they are not as complex as the rendering problem itself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 21:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87poyn43qb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #77759 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: > On 03-Dec-15 08:09, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> UTF-8 is not a problem, it's a solution. Reversing a string is >> harder, yes, but writing Wikipedia is easier; strlen will "lie", but >> fopen and thousand other interface functions don't need to be >> re-written. Embrace it! > > That "lie" depends on what you think strlen() measures; if you want the > number of bytes needed to hold a string (not including the terminator), > it tells you the truth, but if you want to know the number of grapheme > clusters a user perceives, it would need to contain all the complexity > of a fully internationalized rendering engine and perhaps even the > context of the string, which is obviously absurd. Of course. Hence the scare quotes. It does not lie -- it simply tells you something that might not mean what you code assumes it means. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 21:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3nope$mbp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77665 |
On 02/12/15 21:12, BartC wrote: > On 02/12/2015 20:32, Ian Collins wrote: <snip> >> Maybe "most code does not split strings in a naïve manner" would be >> better? Looking at my own code, where a string gets split, it gets >> splat after a search for a delimiter. [I'm not replying to this bit, but I couldn't find it within me to delete such a marvellous inflection of "split".] > What's wrong in wanting to do things in a naive manner? Ie. in a simple > and obvious way. Nothing at all. I suspect that you might have a certain sympathy for my own take on this whole Unicode/UTF thing, which is characteristically English: 1) use only the characters in the basic execution character set (typically ASCII or EBCDIC); 2) if anyone doesn't understand it, print it a little slower, and in UPPER CASE. <snip> -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 16:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n3npqb$qfe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77669 |
On 02-Dec-15 15:47, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 02/12/15 21:12, BartC wrote: >> On 02/12/2015 20:32, Ian Collins wrote: >>> Maybe "most code does not split strings in a naïve manner" would >>> be better? Looking at my own code, where a string gets split, it >>> gets splat after a search for a delimiter. > > [I'm not replying to this bit, but I couldn't find it within me to > delete such a marvellous inflection of "split".] If you like that, have you heard the one about the old lady visiting Boston who asked a cabbie where she could get scrod? >> What's wrong in wanting to do things in a naive manner? Ie. in a >> simple and obvious way. > > Nothing at all. I suspect that you might have a certain sympathy for > my own take on this whole Unicode/UTF thing, which is > characteristically English: > > 1) use only the characters in the basic execution character set > (typically ASCII or EBCDIC); > 2) if anyone doesn't understand it, print it a little slower, and > in UPPER CASE. As a friend often says, I encourage my competitors to do this. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 14:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnbna8sdob.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #77665 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> It's like taking existing code which works perfectly well with
> characters, and changing it to work with variable-length words.
>
> Who wants to code like that? I think UTF8 is a fine compression scheme
> for storing text on disk, otherwise...
Or for transmitting text.
*Some* in-memory text processing can be done perfectly well using
UTF-8. If that's all you're doing, there's no point in translating
UTF-8 to some other internal form.
Other kinds of processing can be more difficult due to the
variable-length encoding. In that case, you can convert the UTF-8
you read from a file to, say, UTF-32 (or wchar_t[] if wchar_t is
32 bits on your system), do your stuff, then convert back to UTF-8
for output.
Yes, it's more complicated than working with 7-bit ASCII text that
can't represent accented letters or European currency symbols.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-02 22:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3ns8p$3s7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77674 |
On 02/12/2015 22:12, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] >> It's like taking existing code which works perfectly well with >> characters, and changing it to work with variable-length words. >> >> Who wants to code like that? I think UTF8 is a fine compression scheme >> for storing text on disk, otherwise... > > Or for transmitting text. > > *Some* in-memory text processing can be done perfectly well using > UTF-8. If that's all you're doing, there's no point in translating > UTF-8 to some other internal form. > > Other kinds of processing can be more difficult due to the > variable-length encoding. You seem to be the first to admit of any difficulty! The replies tend to be of two kinds: either UTF8 is no problem at all or, if I give even a trivial example of something that is much harder in UTF8, puzzlement as to why I'm attempting to code anything like that! What has everybody here been programming the last few decades? Have they really never done any string processing apart from strcpy and strcat? > Yes, it's more complicated than working with 7-bit ASCII text that > can't represent accented letters or European currency symbols. I used to write international applications in the 80s and 90s. This was for Western Europe so mainly needed accented vowels and such. I used character codes in the range 128 to 256 to represent any extra characters, although every platform used a different set of codes. It wasn't a big deal because the software just evolved between platforms anyway. A bigger problem was managing translations. (Sometimes, I had to construct my own fonts, eg. vector fonts for pen plotters. Of course that would be unmanageable now with 1 million Unicode characters and hundreds of solid-filled fonts.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 14:00 +1300 |
| Subject | Re: Working efficiently with 32-bit Unicode output streams, locale etc. |
| Message-ID | <dc9igmFi96mU9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #77677 |
BartC wrote: > On 02/12/2015 22:12, Keith Thompson wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> [...] >>> It's like taking existing code which works perfectly well with >>> characters, and changing it to work with variable-length words. >>> >>> Who wants to code like that? I think UTF8 is a fine compression scheme >>> for storing text on disk, otherwise... >> >> Or for transmitting text. >> >> *Some* in-memory text processing can be done perfectly well using >> UTF-8. If that's all you're doing, there's no point in translating >> UTF-8 to some other internal form. >> >> Other kinds of processing can be more difficult due to the >> variable-length encoding. > > You seem to be the first to admit of any difficulty! I don't think anyone has been claiming that UTF-8 (or any other extended text encoding) is perfect. It's popularity stems form it being the best of a group of imperfect solutions! > The replies tend to be of two kinds: either UTF8 is no problem at all > or, if I give even a trivial example of something that is much harder in > UTF8, puzzlement as to why I'm attempting to code anything like that! > > What has everybody here been programming the last few decades? Have they > really never done any string processing apart from strcpy and strcat? Well in my case, anything involving accurate test rendering has been in browser side code, so no C there. Code interpreting and manipulating strings has been in C or C++ where the standard libraries have all I require to do *what I need to do* with UTF-8 strings. Given most of what I do is UNIX systems programming, I have to be aware of and not mess up UTF-8 path and file names. Alas, more than a few existing utilities are not UTF-8 aware. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 01:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n3orda$pfu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #77677 |
On 02-Dec-15 16:47, BartC wrote: > On 02/12/2015 22:12, Keith Thompson wrote: >> *Some* in-memory text processing can be done perfectly well using >> UTF-8. If that's all you're doing, there's no point in >> translating UTF-8 to some other internal form. >> >> Other kinds of processing can be more difficult due to the >> variable-length encoding. > > You seem to be the first to admit of any difficulty! I've pointed out difficulties myself. I didn't mean to give the impression I thought that UTF-8 was zero work, just that it was trivial compared to the _other_ problems you have to deal with to properly support Unicode, and that those problems don't go away (and may get worse) with other encodings. > The replies tend to be of two kinds: either UTF8 is no problem at > all or, if I give even a trivial example of something that is much > harder in UTF8, puzzlement as to why I'm attempting to code anything > like that! Well, your examples do seem contrived to showcase specific tasks that are harder in UTF-8 but, in my experience, uncommon in practice. > What has everybody here been programming the last few decades? Have > they really never done any string processing apart from strcpy and > strcat? Unicode had already appeared when I learned C (20 years ago now), so I've always _assumed_ that strings were non-ASCII and treated them as such. I also speak/write four languages, and I remember the pain of trying to use non-ASCII text before UTF-8 was widely available, and in particular trying to mix them in the same texts. >> Yes, it's more complicated than working with 7-bit ASCII text that >> can't represent accented letters or European currency symbols. > > I used to write international applications in the 80s and 90s. This > was for Western Europe so mainly needed accented vowels and such. I > used character codes in the range 128 to 256 to represent any extra > characters, although every platform used a different set of codes. ISO-8859 or Windows-125X are usually good enough if you only need to support SBCS. That falls apart once you have to handle DBCS or MBCS, e.g. for CJK scripts, and then you might as well go to UTF-8 so you never have to deal with any other encoding ever again. > It wasn't a big deal because the software just evolved between > platforms anyway. A bigger problem was managing translations. There are libraries, e.g. GNU gettext, and translation bureaus for that; as long as you use a universal encoding, e.g. UTF-8, there is little to no developer work for any additional languages--though many folks don't think to do that until after already doing 2-3 the hard way. I recently took a product from 1 to 13 languages in one release; it was mostly an intern marking up all the string literals, then running a script and sending the resulting files (and a big check) to the bureau we use for our other products. A little QA and we were done. > (Sometimes, I had to construct my own fonts, eg. vector fonts for > pen plotters. Of course that would be unmanageable now with 1 > million Unicode characters and hundreds of solid-filled fonts.) Some really odd folks make TrueType/OpenType fonts for _fun_. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-03 02:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <242b7fe2-babb-4064-9821-d8c6ac1b00f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #77711 |
On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 7:38:47 AM UTC, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > Some really odd folks make TrueType/OpenType fonts for _fun_. > Font design used to be an extremely high status activity. There was a whole methodology and language to it. Now of course anyone can design a font and put in on the web. But the sense of status still attaches. And of course it's worth something if your font becomes accepted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web