| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
| X-Spam-Check-By: | sourceware.org |
| Message-ID: | <4692832A.3080108@cygwin.com> |
| Date: | Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:49:14 -0400 |
| From: | "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh AT cygwin DOT com> |
| Reply-To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
| User-Agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070505 Remi/2.0.0.0-3.fc4.remi Thunderbird/2.0.0.0 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0 |
| MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
| To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
| Subject: | Re: status of utf-8 patch |
| References: | <3058f9b40707090419w3b475aa1j74396a5dad5aacd9 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <46921D75 DOT 29CE8798 AT dessent DOT net> <f6tn6v$rpu$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <46927899 DOT 60609 AT cygwin DOT com> <3058f9b40707091122o5ab30b8ci717c93bedf537796 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> |
| In-Reply-To: | <3058f9b40707091122o5ab30b8ci717c93bedf537796@mail.gmail.com> |
| Mailing-List: | contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm |
| List-Id: | <cygwin.cygwin.com> |
| List-Subscribe: | <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com> |
| List-Archive: | <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/> |
| List-Post: | <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> |
| List-Help: | <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs> |
| Sender: | cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com |
| Mail-Followup-To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
| Delivered-To: | mailing list cygwin 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
>> > news:46921D75 DOT 29CE8798 AT dessent DOT 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/
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |