Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 09:36:10 +0300 From: Valentin Nechayev <netch@iv.nn.kiev.ua> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: wint_t Message-ID: <20010515093610.A1835@iv.nn.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <20010514174502.J2009@fw.wintelcom.net>; from bright@wintelcom.net on Mon, May 14, 2001 at 05:45:02PM -0700 References: <20010514164401.A61243@dragon.nuxi.com> <20010515023221.A41666@student.uu.se> <20010514174502.J2009@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mon, May 14, 2001 at 17:45:02, bright (Alfred Perlstein) wrote about "Re: wint_t": > > The C standard says that wchar_t should be able to all members of thye > > largest extended chracter set. AFAIK FreeBSD doesn't have any character > > set which requires more than 8 bits. > > wint_t should also be able to hold all members of the largest character > > set plus one extra value (WEOF). Also it must be at least 16 bits. > Wouldn't it be kinda painful unless we did this with a 16 bit type? Modern Unicode allows character codes more than 65534. wchar_t(65536) is Egyptian glyph;) Maximum allowed AFAIR is 2**31-1. So at least 32 bits integer type required if you don't want adapt system to former millennium requires. But wint_t must be no narrower than wchar_t. <curses.h> and <ncurses.h> define wchar_t as unsigned long. System headers define wchar_t as int (thru _BSD_WCHAR_T_ and _BSD_CT_RUNE_T_). This difference in size and signness is at least annoying. I suppose wchar_t should be __uint32_t, and wint_t - __int32_t, but this may break binary compatibility. /netch To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010515093610.A1835>