Re: Unicode setting question


"Bo Persson" <bop@xxxxxx> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:6aceuuF379eq5U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tom Serface wrote:
No one is really asking me either :o)

Trying to move toward standard instead of making it easier to
create Windows programs will be the death of VC++ in my opinion. I
would imagine that there are some people who care about the
"standard" stuff, but I just want to create Windows programs that
look cool and work and are easy to maintain.

The whole world isn't just doing desktop applications. Ask Google, for
example.

But if we focus on Windows desktop applications, I fail to understand
reasons why we can't have some ad hoc extensions to Microsoft C++ to make
code cleaner.
We are not asking to break the standard and assume 'char' = Unicode char.

We (Tom, David C., me...) are just asking to provide a simple compiler
switch, such that strings are assumed Unicode in Unicode builds.
So we don't need decorations.

If one wants to compile standard C++, he disables that option (let assume
default = 'disabled', so the standard people are more happy :)
But if one wants to build Windows-only desktop apps, he can turn this option
on, so he can just use "" for strings, and strings are considered Unicode.

Moreover, IMHO the C++ standard is not very "standard" for Unicode things...
For example: on VC++, wchar_t is unisgned short (16 bits, fine for UTF-16);
but I read that on other platforms (maybe some flavours of Linux/Unix?)
wchar_t is 32 bits, because they use UTF-32. So, this "standard" is kind of
"flexible"...

BTW: I'm not against standard stuff for C++. On the contrary, I think that
standard feature of the language can be a very good point for C++: in fact,
people who want to buid applications that run on several platforms can use
C++ as their language for development.
For example, I think that Google Earth is built using C++ and QT library (I
Spy++'ed it). And maybe also Skype and Adobe Photoshop Elements are built
using QT...
So, standard C++ is a great thing.

I would just like some "add-on" to the standard, just a switch that you can
turn off or off, basing on your needs (if, for your project, you don't need
standard stuff, and just want Windows-only stuff, why not?)

My 2 cents.

Giovanni


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Microsoft Says Recovery from Malware Becoming Impossible
    ... a Microsoft security official said ... dollar everytime I caught something on Windows I could retire very ... what became an industy standard ??? ... And who actually invented XML??? ...
    (microsoft.public.security)
  • Re: What if Microsoft never existed?
    ... MS Word 1.0 for Windows was way ... >>> Without the standard, the life of developers would be hell. ... >>>is dead (OK, they still do releases, but largely based on Mozilla), ... But when Word will create/edit .pdf, ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips)
  • Re: Good Lisp editor for Win
    ... Emacs went away from those and in the process was awkward. ... Windows was create in 1983 ... windows decides what is standard and what's not. ... surrendering the truth just because it is ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: OT: Win 7 comments
    ... see nothing in it that the standard Win32 menu control doesn't do. ... If you just blame the registry rather than troubleshooting, you can't fix it, and you have to rebuild. ... And on Windows, deleting preferences is not a time-hallowed ritual for exorcising demons from the computer. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Graduate Teacher Programme - best way to approach it
    ... It is a de facto standard. ... aiming to teach transferable skills- so pupils can adapt to use applications ... Linux just happens to be the only viable competitor to Windows ...
    (uk.education.teachers)
Quantcast