Benjamin.Riefenstahl at epost.de
Mon Mar 8 14:11:46 GMT 2004
Simo Sorce <simo.sorce at xsec.it> writes:
> NO, that would mean you have 2 "internal charests" to deal with ...
> Actually we make a rule that all constants are _only_ ASCII and you
> can guarantee all charset you use are 100% ASCII compatible.
On a slightly different level you are actually dealing with an
unlimited number of encodings at the moment, and they are all in 8-bit
and distinguished at runtime. Two reliable ones (ASCII and UTF-16)
with different static signatures (distinguished at compile time) and
separate sets of functions/methods seems an improvement to me.
> (you have 2 internal charsets then, that's a nightmare),
:-( You folks have too many nightmares for my taste.
> custom preprocessing scripts with costants defined outside the
> source code file,
That's probably the easiest method of the ideas I was talking about.
> that defeats the usefulness of many constant strings.
Some people would think this would *enhance* the quality of the code
immediately and could be an incentive to improve it even more. But I
realize that opinions can reasonably vary on that point, so this
depends much on who is going to write and maintain the code.
It also depends on the type of constants we are talking about. Using
this technique on the format string of a log message created via
sprintf() doesn't make sense.
More information about the samba-technical