victor@gran-paradiso.tivoli.com (Brian Victor) (02/20/91)
[ I just started reading this group today; my apologies if I'm asking a
`frequently asked question'. ]
How well supported is wchar_t? What would happen to me if I started writing
all my programs using wchar_t instead of good ole char (is there wchar-ized
libc, eg.)? How does it fit in with SysV.4 and XPG?
Thanks!
--
Brian Victor TIVOLI Systems victor@tivoli.com
...!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!tivoli!victorhenry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (02/21/91)
In article <VICTOR.91Feb20113032@gran-paradiso.tivoli.com> victor@tivoli.com writes: >How well supported is wchar_t? What would happen to me if I started writing >all my programs using wchar_t instead of good ole char (is there wchar-ized >libc, eg.)? How does it fit in with SysV.4 and XPG? Uh, you need to look really hard at ANSI C before you start assuming that things like a "wchar-ized libc" are going to be provided. It's not that simple. Plain old "char" is still the type of choice for a lot of things. -- "Read the OSI protocol specifications? | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology I can't even *lift* them!" | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry