Re: A draft for a multibyte and multi-codepoint C string interface

[tlaronde%polynum.com@localhost]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 08:02:58AM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> >> The 16 bit restriction was a conscious decision, right?  ISO 10646
> >> was 31 bit from the very start.  [...]
> > Are there really people who want to switch to "Unicode" and not
> > UTF-8, [...]?
> 
> Well, I don't know about `people', but I probably count.  I think the
> only sane way to do Unicode is to widen `char'.

What I do mean is: are there people, for the system (the kernel and the
system calls) who want to pass something else than null terminated
octets strings and want that the low level basis be something else than
an octet? (I tend to use UTF-8 when meaning: null terminated
octets strings, because Unicode can fit in it.)

-- 
        Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com>
                      http://www.kergis.com/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89  250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C