Universal character names and Unicode

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.
 
N

Noah Roberts

Ron said:
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.

You are asking in the wrong group. This group is about c++ programming,
not Unicode. Most here probably don't know the answer. I don't know
what group is appropriate, perhapse comp.programming
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,904
Latest member
HealthyVisionsCBDPrice

Latest Threads

Top