Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Is wchar_t really useful? |
| Date | 2015-11-13 17:26 +0100 |
| Organization | solani.org |
| Message-ID | <n252vq$4jg$1@solani.org> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <n1q8v2$f03$1@dont-email.me> <n227bt$q5b$1@solani.org> <n229li$hvg$1@dont-email.me> <n22c4n$bjr$1@solani.org> <n22ekd$7og$1@dont-email.me> |
On 12.11.2015 17:29, James Kuyper wrote: > On 11/12/2015 10:44 AM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: >> On 12.11.2015 16:04, James Kuyper wrote: >> >>> Why exactly are you interested in how an implementation could weasel out >>> of this requirement? As I understand it, there's a simple process that >>> goes on when designing this part of an implementation of C: choose what >>> extended character sets you want to support, and which encoding. Then >>> choose a single character encoding capable of representing all of those >>> characters, and define wchar_t to be a type big enough to store the >>> representations of any of those characters. Did you have a different >>> implementation design process in mind? >>> >> >> 1) AFAIK, Windows compilers tend to use a 16-bit wchar_t, and assume >> sequences of wchar_t to be UTF-16-encoded. Thus there are characters >> that don't fit into a wchar_t. How do these implementations get around >> the sandard requirement? > > I've no idea - possibly by not conforming to the requirements? So there are no standard-conforming C implementations targeting Windows? Microsoft documetnation, e.g. https://msdn.microsoft.com/de-de/library/yeby3zcb.aspx explicitly says that wchar_t uses UTF-8. But that means there are characters that do not fit into a single wchar_t, which seems to violate the standard requirements. Philipp
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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