Subject: Re: UCS-2 vs. UCS-4
From: Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Jun 26 2001 - 08:52:09 CDT
Thomas Fletcher wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Martin Sevior wrote:
> >
> > This is an interesting debate. One extra point we should all keep in mind
> > is that we probabally don't waste much more space going from 16 => 32 bits
> > for character representation.
>
> [Other comments about sizes of data structures snipped]
>
> Martin,
>
> Call me crazy ... but I _totally_ don't believe this statement. For
> anyone working on documents of any size, our memory consumption is an
> issue. Deciding to double the per character memory requirements will
> add up. While some systems are swappable ... we certainly don't want
> to count out the fact that Abi could be used on smaller devices.
>
> I'm all for Mike suggestion of a scalable class that hides all of
> this work from me.
It worries me too. How about a class whose scale is set at compile
time? So English only people can have something tiny, most people
can have UCS-2 like we have it now, and only those that really need
UCS-4 for esoteric purposes have that. It would be smaller, faster,
and (should be) less complicated.
Andrew.
-- http://linguaphile.sourceforge.net _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Jun 26 2001 - 08:50:48 CDT