Re: status of utf-8 patch

["Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh at cygwin dot com>]

<http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#TOFU>.  Reformatted.

Ariel Burbaickij wrote:
> On 7/9/07, Larry Hall (Cygwin) <reply-to-list-only-lh <AT> cygwin <DOT> com> wrote:
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

<http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PCYMTNQREAIYR>  Please, let's not feed the
spammers.


> > Matt Seitz wrote:
> > > "Brian Dessent" <brian <AT> dessent <DOT> net> wrote in message
> > > 46921D75.29CE8798@dessent.net">news:46921D75.29CE8798@dessent.net...
> > >> Ariel Burbaickij wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> question: what is  the status of utf-8 patch fo cygwin? Is it
> > >> You can find all the details in the mailing list archives.
> > >> <http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2006-q3/msg00014.html>
> > >>
> > >>> endorsed/supported?
> > >> It was submitted and rejected on technical grounds, which means sadly
> > >> it's not supported here.
> > >
> > > The explanation I saw for the rejection was "...it should just be a
> > > wholesale replacement, not a bunch of wrappers around existing 
> > functions."
> > >
> > > It's now a year later.  Is there an expectation that the "wholesale
> > > replacement" or another solution is coming soon?  What would be the 
> > harm in
> > > adopting the current solution for now?  Is this a case of "the 
> > perfect is
> > > the enemy of the good"?
> >
> >
> > No.  It's more like the "the limited hack is the enemy of future 
> > progress".
> > It should be _a_little_ easier to implement something maintainable with
> > 1.7 code (in CVS), since Win9x support is no longer a requirement.
> Have you some outlines of this something given WIn 9x support can be
> dropped, indeed?


Not really, no.  But Win9x definitely complicated the API and forced Cygwin
down a path that is the genesis of this problem.  Removing the requirements
to support these limited O/S versions should make UNICODE/UTF8 support
cleaner.


--
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd.                          (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/