"Bill Tutt" <rassilon@lyra.org> writes:
> > UCS-2 is really useful --- almost essential --- if you are
> > manipulating Unicode characters. So, if svn is reformatting strings
> > to word-wrap, or is translating between encodings, it really does want
> > to be using UCS-2 for that.
> >
>
> A big +20 to that. UCS-2/UTF-16 is so much easier to process than UTF-8
> sequences.
Actually, Subversion doesn't do any processing that would be easier to
do with UCS-2/UTF-16 as far as I have seen. Mostly the strings are
just passed around, concatenated, and splitted on ASCII characters
(which have identity encoding in UTF-8). And UCS-2/UTF-16 sucks as
they can't encode the full range of ISO-10646. If you are going to
use wide characters, UCS-4 is the way to go. But for the particular
application of Subversion, I don't see a problem with using UTF-8. If
you find a place in the code where using wide chars would have been
easier, please point it out.
// Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jun 1 14:09:23 2002