On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 14:46:40 -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 09:34:51AM +0000, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
> > Thomas Klausner <wiz@netbsd.org> wrote:
> > 
> > >> Note that this patch doesn't handle -B and -b options, because I'm
> > >> not sure how strvis() should be i18n'ized.
> > > 
> > > Does someone else have comments on this?
> > 
> > What about
> > 
> > \xHHHH or for double byte encodings
> > \uHHHH or \UHHHHHHHH for unicode (or whatever java and c99 syntax is).
> 
> I'm confused as to why we would want both. Is there prior art we're 
> following?
> 
> I ask as my initial read on your comments is that one syntax would 
> generate UTF-16 output, and the other would generate UTF-8.

By DBCS I meant *any* double byte encoding, not UTF-16.

I really made that remark in passing, w/out putting much thought into
it.  One thing that I can recall is that strvis() is not dissimilar
from iconv() in that it converts one character set into another.  If
the source set is unicode, using \u syntax is natural.  If the source
set is not - it'd use \x.

SY, Uwe
-- 
uwe@ptc.spbu.ru                         |       Zu Grunde kommen
http://www.ptc.spbu.ru/~uwe/            |       Ist zu Grunde gehen