[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: 16bit ctype table
> On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 03:56:25AM +0900, Takehiko NOZAKI wrote:
>> > I still don't see the point in redefining the ctype stuff. Does it
>> > *really* break on any platform we care about?
>> if you think so, it is the matter. maybe only in your mind.
>> please clarify what are you warried about.
>> it is far away from ``technical'' discussion.
>> i'm getting sick of such uncertainty.
> It is quite a technical issue. I don't see how any platform definition
> of _RUNETYPE_A and friends can invalidate the definitions from
> runetype_file.h, since it is pretty much the last thing included in
> mklocale's sources. Duplicating the definitions in the source is
> certainly bad.
are you talking about _CTYPE_FOO and _NB_CTYPE_FOO?
given the invariant _RUNETYPE_FOO == (_CTYPE_FOO << 8), your version of
patch has same amount of redundant definitions there, hasn't it?
> I do have a minor aversion against _COMPAT_BSDCTYPE, since I don't think
> having individual compat macros is useful.
Main Index |
Thread Index |