Tim Peters wrote:
[Tim]
I don't know why Martin favors wchar_t when possible. The answer to that isn't clear.
[Martin v. Löwis]
If the wchar_t is "usable", some routines (notably PU_AsWideChar) are slightly more efficient, so I'd like to make wchar_t "usable" as much as possible.
OK. So is there an end to this thread <0.9 wink>? At the moment, it appears there's no identified reason to care about signedness of a greater-than 16-bit type,
Sure there is: first of all, having a single type that can be signed on some platforms and unsigned on others is a bad thing per se and second the 32-bit signed wchar_t value was what triggered this thread in the first place.
good reason to insist that a 16-bit type is unsigned, and that it's desirable for HAVE_USABLE_WCHAR_T to get defined when possible. What more does it take to bury this? If it's Unixish config chagnes, they won't be coming from me (the Windows build uses an unsigned 16-bit wchar_t).
That's what it takes, right. I'll work on it. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Software directly from the Source (#1, Sep 22 2003)
Python/Zope Products & Consulting ... http://www.egenix.com/ mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/
::: Try mxODBC.Zope.DA for Windows,Linux,Solaris,FreeBSD for free ! ::::