pharvey at peterharvey.org
Tue Nov 6 02:15:46 GMT 2007
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 02:05:57PM -0800, Peter Harvey wrote:
>> I have to wonder if using ICU instead of iconv would better support
>> loss-less string handling within unixODBC? Would probably mean that some
>> string handling code could be removed from __info.c and that strings
>> would never have to be dumbed down due to a lack of feature support in
>> I know that ICU is not best represented in C (as compared to C++ and
>> Java) but may be a better fit than iconv?
> Hrm, what's the problem needing solving here? AFAIK, ICU is primarily
> needed if you have to do canonicalization of Unicode strings; is that
> relevant to UnixODBC?
> ICU's a pretty heavy library to pull in if you don't really have use for it.
Yes - agreed. I am not sure it is needed but let me throw out some
potential reasons and see if they can (or even need) to be addressed via
ICU etc. Here is a starter...
At the moment - some of the string processing occurs only after the
string is dumbed down (to ascii) - allowing the use of standard C string
processing. Is this lossless, given our use? I suspect its lossless for
ASCII stuff like the standard keywords but are there similar
circumstances where we could loose characters?
More information about the unixODBC-dev