Re: [9fans] strangely typed functions in standard library

["Bruce Ellis" <bruce.ellis@gmail.com>]

32 bit unicode is not Rune friendly ... i hope Runes don't
get fatter.  it will break many things.  rob has had something
to say about this, do a search on the list.

i'd like to map them to RFat ... something unassigned in
0xFF.. space.

use them at your peril.

brucee

On 5/18/06, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> while this is true, i believe that the real reason for this is that
> on a >=32-bit machine, an ushort can just be declared
> to be a long by the compiler whereas the compiler must emit
> instructions to convert a long to an unsigned short.
>
> - erik
>
> On Tue May 16 10:10:37 CDT 2006, 0xef967c36@gmail.com wrote:
> > On 5/16/06, Matt Stewart <rotaerk1@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The following functions are described as accepting a Rune, but instead
> > > the parameters are of type long.  Why?
> > >
> > > int runelen(long);
> > > char *utfrune(char *, long);
> > > char *utfrrune(char *, long);
> >
> > full unicode is 32 bit, even if plan9 (afaik)
> > supports only characters in the BMP.
>