Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #75875

Re: Is wchar_t really useful?

From Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: Is wchar_t really useful?
Date 2015-11-12 14:27 -0600
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <n22siu$4d9$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References <n1puh2$17n$1@solani.org> <n1q8v2$f03$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 09-Nov-15 08:03, James Kuyper wrote:
> Many (most?) of the C standard library routines that take or return 
> char* arguments are defined as interpreting those pointers as
> pointing to a multibyte character string (MBCS). If it were up to me,
> there'd be one term "single byte character" referring to a single
> char object that can represent a character, while "multibyte
> character" would refer only to sequences of two or more char objects
> that together represent a single character. The committee took a
> different approach, defining the term "multibyte character" to
> include both of those categories (3.7.2p1).

If a Single-Byte Character is a member of a Single-Byte Character Set,
and a Double-Byte Character is a member of a Double-Byte Character Set,
then a Multi-Byte Character is a member of a Multi-Byte Character Set.

Single- and Double-Byte Characters are have a fixed width; Multi-Byte
Characters do not.  Despite the usual implication of "Multi-", it can
include one-byte characters.

Sadly, MBCS code often treats MBCS as if it means "SBCS and/or DBCS" and
therefore mishandles the three- or four-byte characters of UTF-8, UTF-16
and UCS-4/UTF-32.

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

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Is wchar_t really useful? Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2015-11-09 12:02 +0100
  Re: Is wchar_t really useful? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-09 03:24 -0800
    Re: Is wchar_t really useful? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-10 18:33 -0600
      Re: Is wchar_t really useful? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-11 13:56 +1300
  Re: Is wchar_t really useful? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-11-09 09:03 -0500
    Re: Is wchar_t really useful? Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2015-11-12 15:22 +0100
      Re: Is wchar_t really useful? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-11-12 10:04 -0500
        Re: Is wchar_t really useful? Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2015-11-12 16:44 +0100
          Re: Is wchar_t really useful? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-11-12 11:29 -0500
            Re: Is wchar_t really useful? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-12 09:14 -0800
              Re: Is wchar_t really useful? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-14 11:50 -0800
                Re: Is wchar_t really useful? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-15 13:44 -0800
                Re: Is wchar_t really useful? Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2015-11-15 22:50 +0100
                Re: Is wchar_t really useful? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-15 14:46 -0800
                Re: Is wchar_t really useful? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-11-17 22:34 +0000
                Re: Is wchar_t really useful? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-16 07:25 -0800
            Re: Is wchar_t really useful? Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2015-11-13 17:26 +0100
              Re: Is wchar_t really useful? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-11-13 13:36 -0500
                Re: Is wchar_t really useful? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-13 16:37 -0600
                Re: Is wchar_t really useful? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-11-13 17:58 -0500
              Re: Is wchar_t really useful? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-13 16:01 -0600
                Re: Is wchar_t really useful? Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2015-11-13 23:36 +0100
    Re: Is wchar_t really useful? Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2015-11-12 15:28 +0100
      Re: Is wchar_t really useful? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-11-12 10:26 -0500
    Re: Is wchar_t really useful? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-12 14:27 -0600
  Re: Is wchar_t really useful? Lőrinczy Zsigmond <nospam@for.me> - 2015-11-13 05:02 +0100
    Re: Is wchar_t really useful? Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2015-11-13 11:52 +0100
      Re: Is wchar_t really useful? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-13 05:17 -0800
        Re: Is wchar_t really useful? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-13 12:58 -0600
        Re: Is wchar_t really useful? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-13 11:14 -0800
    Re: Is wchar_t really useful? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-13 12:45 -0600
  Re: Is wchar_t really useful? Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2015-11-13 18:24 +0100
    Re: Is wchar_t really useful? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-11-13 13:55 -0500
      Re: Is wchar_t really useful? Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2015-11-13 20:39 +0100
        Re: Is wchar_t really useful? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-11-13 14:54 -0500
        Re: Is wchar_t really useful? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-13 17:04 -0600

csiph-web