From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26084 invoked by alias); 2 Feb 2011 20:43:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 26075 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Feb 2011 20:43:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-yx0-f171.google.com (HELO mail-yx0-f171.google.com) (209.85.213.171) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 20:43:19 +0000 Received: by yxd30 with SMTP id 30so218654yxd.2 for ; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 12:43:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.151.153.12 with SMTP id f12mr3628911ybo.81.1296679397118; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 12:43:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.147.172.19 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 12:43:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201102021957.07676.bruno@clisp.org> References: <201101310304.42975.bruno@clisp.org> <201102021229.04623.bruno@clisp.org> <4D4999BA.2030100@cs.ucla.edu> <201102021957.07676.bruno@clisp.org> Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 20:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#7948: 16-bit wchar_t on Windows and Cygwin From: Andy Koppe To: cygwin@cygwin.com Cc: Paul Eggert , Eric Blake , bug-gnulib@gnu.org, bug-coreutils Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg00064.txt.bz2 On 2 February 2011 18:57, Bruno Haible wrote: > Hi Paul, > >> > =C2=A0 - Define a type 'wwchar_t' on all platforms, equivalent to uint= 32_t >> > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 on Windows platforms and to 'wchar_t' otherwise. >> >> As a minor point, would it be OK to call this type >> 'xchar_t' instead? =C2=A0'x' is the successor to 'w', after all, >> and it can be thought of as an abbreviation for 'eXtended'. > > 'wwchar_t' means "wide wide character". > > In fact it's not really an "extended" character or "complex character". > It's just what POSIX calls a 'wchar_t'. It's extended in the sense that the original Unicode was only 16 bits wide (which of course is why wchar_t on Windows is 16 bits). Also, I think 'xchar_t' is less prone to typos, in particular forgetting one of the dubyas. Andy -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple