R
Ron
Is there a relation?
The standard says, about the first phase of translation (2.1), that
characters not in the basic source character set must be replaced by the
universal-character-name that represents that character. Anyway, it says
also that the implamentation may use any internal encoding.
My question: are wide characters a good way to encode? But, if i'm right,
wide characters are composed by two bytes that aren't enough to represent
characters with the shape \Uxxxxxxxx. What could be the solution adopted by
modern compilers?
Greetings.
The standard says, about the first phase of translation (2.1), that
characters not in the basic source character set must be replaced by the
universal-character-name that represents that character. Anyway, it says
also that the implamentation may use any internal encoding.
My question: are wide characters a good way to encode? But, if i'm right,
wide characters are composed by two bytes that aren't enough to represent
characters with the shape \Uxxxxxxxx. What could be the solution adopted by
modern compilers?
Greetings.