From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 6 16:22:33 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07692106564A for ; Wed, 6 May 2009 16:22:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joerg@britannica.bec.de) Received: from www.sonnenberger.org (www.ostsee-abc.de [62.206.222.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFF078FC1F for ; Wed, 6 May 2009 16:22:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joerg@britannica.bec.de) Received: from britannica.bec.de (www.sonnenberger.org [192.168.1.10]) by www.sonnenberger.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158C36676F for ; Wed, 6 May 2009 18:22:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: by britannica.bec.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 14EC91BDD74; Wed, 6 May 2009 18:22:47 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 18:22:47 +0200 From: Joerg Sonnenberger To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20090506162247.GA23015@britannica.bec.de> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: <20090427183836.GA10793@zim.MIT.EDU> <49F5FE45.2090101@freebsd.org> <20090427193326.GA7654@britannica.bec.de> <20090427194904.GA11137@zim.MIT.EDU> <49F6C7A1.6070708@FreeBSD.org> <20090428122225.GA2862@britannica.bec.de> <24e9a86bf5995ba551db8f27aa204191.squirrel@webmail.kovesdan.org> <20090428180624.GA2223@britannica.bec.de> <4A00B897.809@FreeBSD.org> <3cb459ed0905060328n4ad05d98xb5ba0c2e01d356e2@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3cb459ed0905060328n4ad05d98xb5ba0c2e01d356e2@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Subject: Re: SoC 2009: BSD-licensed libiconv in base system X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 16:22:33 -0000 On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 02:28:51PM +0400, Alexander Churanov wrote: > 1) Why discuss UCS-4 at all? UTF-32 is alreay in place. SImple, > standardized, fixed-width and stateless. Which part of "combining characters" is stateless? Sure, you can ignore that in some/many applications, but it still exists. UCS-4 and UTF-32 are identical, so discussing one is enough. > 2) I'm against using wchar_t internally, because C language standard > does not require that a wchar_t variable can hold an UTF-32 code > point. See my original point of that locale independent wchar_t might be useful, but creates problems. If the OS supports full Unicode 3+ locales, it will have to be able to fit any UCS-4 code point into wchar_t. Joerg