From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,5bcc293dc5642650 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Received: by 10.68.31.73 with SMTP id y9mr1710492pbh.0.1318922941770; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:29:01 -0700 (PDT) Path: d5ni25839pbc.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!feeder.news-service.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Why no Ada.Wide_Directories? Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:29:30 +0200 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: <188lznj47r82r.17a5u96kequ6v.dlg@40tude.net> References: <9937871.172.1318575525468.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prib32> <418b8140-fafb-442f-b91c-e22cc47f8adb@y22g2000pri.googlegroups.com> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18538 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: 2011-10-18T09:29:30+02:00 List-Id: On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:41:12 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote: > "Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57)" wrote in message > news:op.v3fjvf1vule2fv@index.ici... >>Le Sat, 15 Oct 2011 15:12:39 +0200, Peter C. Chapin >>a �crit: >>> It seems like you are expecting too much from the standard. >>I feel to expect safe execution. The actual behavior is unsafe. > > That's clearly an implementation problem rather than a language one. > Ada.Directories was designed with the intent that UTF-8 encoding could be > used throughout (as an option) and it would work. How could it be an option? String is either Latin-1 or UTF-8. The standard must explicitly require UTF-8 (breaking some existing programs). > Now, if an implementation on Windows doesn't have a way to use UTF-8 > encoding, that is an implementation problem, but not one that the Standard > can do much about. It is the standard problem so long such Windows implementations are conform to the standard. Implementations, which would recode String from UTF-8 to UTF-16 and pass that to a xW Windows call, look illegal to me because String is proclaimed Latin-1. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de