RetroSearch Browse

Sun Sep 21 19:02:24 EDT 2003 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-September/038193.html

[Tim]
>> I don't know why Martin favors wchar_t when possible.  The answer to
>> that isn't clear.

[Martin v. Löwis]
> If the wchar_t is "usable", some routines (notably PU_AsWideChar) are
> slightly more efficient, so I'd like to make wchar_t "usable" as much
> as possible.

OK.  So is there an end to this thread <0.9 wink>?  At the moment, it
appears there's no identified reason to care about signedness of a
greater-than 16-bit type, good reason to insist that a 16-bit type is
unsigned, and that it's desirable for HAVE_USABLE_WCHAR_T to get defined
when possible.  What more does it take to bury this?  If it's Unixish config
chagnes, they won't be coming from me (the Windows build uses an unsigned
16-bit wchar_t).

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-September/038193.html below:

[Python-Dev] Re: [Python-checkins]python/dist/src/Objects unicodeobject.c, 2.197, 2.198