🚀 go-pugleaf

Submitted-by: decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot)

peterw@spaten.sharebase.com (Peter Wisnovsky) writes:
> >Not to mention the reports that Microsoft NT will be POSIX compliant when
> >it appears.
> 
> Not really in terms of character set support. My understanding is that
> they are going to fix wchar_t at 16 bits to store Unicode data, which
> strictly speaking is non-conformant.

What are you babbling about?  POSIX.1 and POSIX.2 say nothing whatsoever
about wchar_t.  ISO C makes no requirement conflicting with using Unicode
(or any 16 bit codeset where there is an all-zero code available for
the null wide character) in wchar_t.

What leads you to believe that using Unicode renders a system non-POSIX
conformant, "strictly" or otherwise?

> I'd love to hear differently, since I envision having to support Unicode
> some day, but am loath to do it without substantial support from the OS.

What kind of OS support do you envision is required?  Generally, applications
should be written using libraries that are codeset independent anyway.

Dave Decot


Volume-Number: Volume 28, Number 92