> I'm working on a portable C++ library, which is supposed to be usable on a wide
> rangeof platforms and environments. If I was guaranteed that Unicode works on
> the major platforms (Windows 95/NT, Solaris, HP/UX, AIX, Linux, Sinix, etc...)
> love to use it.
I guarantee Unicode works on all the major platforms. I've written portable
library code for Unicode support: it works on Windows 95/NT (and 3.1), Solaris,
HP/UX, AIX, SGI Irix, Digital Unix, AT&T Unix, AlphaNT, AlphaVMS, and even
native MVS (!). It would work on OS/2, Mac, Netware, Linux, Sinix, or Foonix, if I
had occasion to support those platforms.
The problem may be in what support you are looking for as included in the term
"Unicode works" for different platforms. You won't find predefined, identical
C++ classes on all systems. And you won't find identical display support on
all platforms. Some have it and some don't, and they tend to be different in
how well they have Unicode display (and input) support integrated.
In sum, can you write portable, cross-platform code based on Unicode? Absolutely,
yes. Can you expect identical support for Unicode *from* the platforms? No.
> But maybe this is already true?
> -- Nitsan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:38 EDT