undefined | Better HN

0 pointsori_b6y ago0 comments

UCS-2 is a bad choice -- it fails to represent most unicode characters. If you meant UTF-16, that's also a bad choice, because UTF-16 is also a variable width encoding, forcing programmers to use a some for of "extra-wide char".

I'm of the opinion that wchar_t should become an alias for char32_t.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

a13692099936y ago· 2 in thread

UTF-32 is also a variable-width encoding; eg 00000044 00000308 aka "D̈".

DougGwyn6y ago

I thought it was strictly one character per 32-bit code. Anyway, whatever it is called it is what wchar_t should be.

a13692099936y ago

There are no fixed width encodings with range of encodable characters anywhere near that of Unicode.

1 more reply

DougGwyn6y ago

Yes, I meant the 31-bit code point value (more than 16, anyway). It is the most useful width for doing things with wide characters.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse