> Any chance of adding the rationale to the code? I'm really short of time right now, so you need to find somebody else to make such a change. > I am willing to believe that requests for a wchar_t (or utf-8 or > System Locale charset) representation are common enough to justify > caching the data after the first request. That's not the issue; the real issue is memory management. > But then why throw it away in the first place? Wouldn't programs that > create unicode from wchar_t data also be the most likely to request > wchar_t data back? Perhaps. But are they likely to access the string they just created again at all? They know what's in it, so why look at it again? > In all other cases, (wstr_length == length), and wstr can be generated > by widening the data without having to inspect it. Is it worth > eliminating wstr_length (or even wstr) in those cases, or is that too > much complexity? It's too little saving. > What I'm asking is that > (1) The other values be documented as reserved, rather than as illegal. How is that different? > (2) The macros produce an error rather than silently corrupting data. In debug mode, or release mode? -1 on release mode. Regards, Martin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4