> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-odbc-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-odbc-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Marc Herbert
> Sent: 08 September 2005 11:10
> To: pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [ODBC] Continuing encoding fun....
> "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> > The ODBC API (defined by Microsoft of course) includes a
> number of *W
> > functions which are Unicode variants of the ANSI versions
> with the same
> > name.
> I think one extra layer of confusion is added by the fact that POSIX
> defines the type wchar_t as "the abstract/platform-dependent
> character", W just meaning here: "W like Wide enough", whereas
> Microsoft defines WCHAR as: "W like Unicode". Microsoft's abstract
> character being "TCHAR".
> Am I right here?
That certainly wouldn't help matters. We already have ucs2<->utf-8
conversion in various places to deal with *nix/win32 differences -
trying to properly munge other encodings into those correctly wouldn't
As I said though - there are other advantages to having a non-Unicode
driver (like, BDE won't barf for example), so why go to all the hassle,
when we can just advise the non-Unicode folks to use the ANSI driver?
pgsql-odbc by date
|Next:||From: Merlin Moncure||Date: 2005-09-08 12:17:15|
|Subject: Re: Application bottlenecks|
|Previous:||From: Marc Herbert||Date: 2005-09-08 10:09:47|
|Subject: Re: Continuing encoding fun....|