Boost logo

Boost :

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-04 04:03:16

Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:

>>>>However, I'm really suspicious of passing wchar_t as unsigned shorts.
>>>>wchar_t is 32 bits on some compilers, and gcc is one of them -- which
>>>>means you're loosing some data.
>>> very good, the whole wchar_t <-> int thing is going to have to be looked
>>> at a little more. Oh then there's the case where wchar_t is just a
>>> typedef
>>> for some int.
> | Guess you'll have to figure out what's the widest type which can keep
> | wchar_t on a current compiler, using some metaprogramming.
> What would be the harm in always using a 32bit type?

Space inefficiency, maybe? Personally, I'm not going to store unicode in
archives in near future, and even if I do, I'm likely to be using utf8, so
can't say if this is real issue.

- Volodya

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at