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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,421baaa91aa096a7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:06:42 +0200 From: Georg Bauhaus User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Wide_[Wide_]Character References: <4878950d$0$25515$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net> <4878a2c7$0$6560$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <487caef2$0$27442$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Jul 2008 16:06:43 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: ea95c65d.newsspool4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=J99fJh0ZA[jf1oJaJ0@dmg4IUK\BH3YbWT0Xb4Uk2de;9OJDO8_SKfNSZ1n^B98ij^b7lPbJ^5Wg X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6889 Date: 2008-07-15T16:06:43+02:00 List-Id: Dale Stanbrough schrieb: > >> Isn't this just like the RM not specifying the bit layout of >> numeric objects? > > I'm not sure what the point of Wide_Wide_Character is if not to deal > with Unicode (or ISO-10646:2003). Sure, Wide_Wide_Character deals with ISO-1646:2003, the normative reference is listed in the LRM; you get I/O of those characters, and compilers will document the external encodings you can use. I also got to know how to pass Wide_Wide_Character objects into and out of my program in case I must (that's the Interfaces[.C] part). But why and when should I wonder what the internal bit layout of Wide_Wide_Character objects actually is? > You could invent your own 32 bit Character code (or use the one the > vendor gives you), but playing in your own backyard doesn't seem very > productive. Why not? If it is faster to use 64 bit words for Wide_Wide_Character operations, if this does not waste too much first level cache, then it seems like a good idea for a compiler to use 64 bits for Wide_Wide_Character. > To me the only point is if it implements the code. Why? -- Georg Bauhaus Y A Time Drain http://www.9toX.de