Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 14:58:27 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett A. Wollman) Cc: terry@lambert.org, wollman@lcs.mit.edu, ache@astral.msk.su, core@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, phk@critter.tfs.com Subject: Re: Locale stuff: call for conclusion. Message-ID: <199510172158.OAA28514@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <9510172112.AA04040@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> from "Garrett A. Wollman" at Oct 17, 95 05:12:00 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Why do you dislike the #ifdef XPG4? > > > It seems the sane soloution for code transitioning... the code can't > > all be transitioned to runic support at once, and runic support is > > less than useful at present in any case because of ISO 2022 and > > shift-JIS not quite fitting XPG/4 in any case. > > I think the most sensible thing to do is to simply say ``multibyte > locales are not supported'' and leave the code in for someone who > actually uses such locales to find any problems. This is workable, but it is less friendly for the transition from 8bit clean to rune-capable code. If I'm running a runic environment, this will cause transitioned 8bit clean code to fail. Wouldn't it be better to allow it to be tackled in two stages instead of all at once? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199510172158.OAA28514>