Re: Trying to fix slang
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 11:24:09AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > What reasons are there to use the non-UTF8 version? Being able to drop in
> > different versions is neat, but if there's no reason to use the non-UTF8
> > version, why lose sleep over it?
> I've read the source, and I think non-UTF8 version has support for
> locales that are not UTF8.
The UTF8 one should support non-UTF8 locales, too. If it doesn't, this
should probably be considered a bug, though it might be one too
complicated to fix right now.
The only problem I've seen is mutt-utf8 not displaying line drawing
characters properly in non-UTF8 locales. I havn't used it that way
> > Of course, the #define UTF8 problem needs to be fixed; the non-UTF8
> > prototypes should never be used when linking against the UTF8 library.
> Yes, please check the diff/upload pending that I have done.
> It should solve most problems, if not all that exist in
> the current version.
Looking at it quickly, I see:
+/* firstname.lastname@example.org, check for UTF8 flags */
+#error "UTF8 symbol does not match slang UTF8 status"
Programs shouldn't need to #define UTF8 explicitely just because they're
linking against the UTF8 version of slang. I'd just #define UTF8
automatically. (But #undef it at the end if it's not the slang library
itself, or rename it to something better like SLANG_UTF8.)
> I don't really care about converting every program to
> UTF8, or making new slang1 package that is binary incompatible with upstream
> versions and every other distribution, or whatever else.
You don't care about any possible solutions other than this one? Your
solution is the *obvious* one; there must be something less obvious
holding up such a fix, or it would probably have been done long ago.
I'm not suggesting converting any programs to UTF8, I'm just offering