[Development] char8_t summary?

André Pönitz apoenitz at t-online.de
Thu Jul 11 10:13:33 CEST 2019


On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:01:04PM -0300, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 July 2019 09:55:02 -03 André Pönitz wrote:
> > As far as I understand there's a perceived need to have "full" utf8
> > literals, and there's a need to have ASCII literals. First could be
> > served by some QUtf8*, second by QAscii*, both additions, no need to
> > change QLatin* semantics.
> 
> ASCII = Latin1

bool = char ?

circle = ellipse ?

It's a subset, it is special enough to be called by its name. Especially
if it has features (e.g. toUpper/toLower operating on single letters) that
are not present in the larger set.

The line of discussion here is 

  - people (correctly, happily) use toUpper on (7-bit clean US-ASCII) data
  - ASCII is claimed to be identical to Latin1
  - since it is identical it is superfluous to have both and ASCII is dropped
  - toUpper does not work per-char for Latin1 in corner cases
  - so it needs to be dropped "to avoid wrong use"

In the end this deprives users from a useful tool in a scenario where it
was perfectly fine to use.

Andre'


More information about the Development mailing list