RE: UNICODE version of _T(x) macro

• Previous message: sowmya satyanarayana: "UNICODE version of _T(x) macro"
• Maybe in reply to: sowmya satyanarayana: "UNICODE version of _T(x) macro"
• Next in thread: Phillips, Addison: "RE: UNICODE version of _T(x) macro"
• Reply: Phillips, Addison: "RE: UNICODE version of _T(x) macro"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

sowmya satyanarayana <sowmya underscore satyanarayana at yahoo dot com>
wrote:

> Taking this, what is the best way to define _T(x) macro of UNICODE version, so
> that my strings will always be
> 2 byte wide character?

Unicode characters aren't always 2 bytes wide. Characters with values
of U+10000 and greater take two UTF-16 code units, and are thus 4 bytes
wide in UTF-16.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s ­

• Next message: Phillips, Addison: "RE: UNICODE version of _T(x) macro"
• Previous message: sowmya satyanarayana: "UNICODE version of _T(x) macro"
• Maybe in reply to: sowmya satyanarayana: "UNICODE version of _T(x) macro"
• Next in thread: Phillips, Addison: "RE: UNICODE version of _T(x) macro"
• Reply: Phillips, Addison: "RE: UNICODE version of _T(x) macro"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 22 2010 - 12:08:38 CST