M
Michael Brennan
I guess this question only applies to programming applications for UNIX,
Windows and similiar. If one develops something for an embedded system
I can understand that wchar_t would be unnecessary.
I wonder if there is any point in using char over wchar_t? I don't see
much code using wchar_t when reading other people's code (but then I
haven't really looked much) or when following this newsgroup. To me it
sounds reasonable to make sure your program can handle multibyte
characters so that it can be used at as many places as possible.
Is there any reason I should not use wchar_t for all my future programs?
I am aware that on UNIX at least, if you use UTF-8, char works pretty
well. But if you use wchar_t you don't need to rely on UTF-8 and thus
makes it more portable, correct?
(I of course do not mean just the type wchar_t, but all of the things
in wide character land)
Thanks
Windows and similiar. If one develops something for an embedded system
I can understand that wchar_t would be unnecessary.
I wonder if there is any point in using char over wchar_t? I don't see
much code using wchar_t when reading other people's code (but then I
haven't really looked much) or when following this newsgroup. To me it
sounds reasonable to make sure your program can handle multibyte
characters so that it can be used at as many places as possible.
Is there any reason I should not use wchar_t for all my future programs?
I am aware that on UNIX at least, if you use UTF-8, char works pretty
well. But if you use wchar_t you don't need to rely on UTF-8 and thus
makes it more portable, correct?
(I of course do not mean just the type wchar_t, but all of the things
in wide character land)
Thanks