Rui Maciel wrote:
> Ioannis Vranos wrote:
>
>> Yes, no problem with that. In a system supporting UTF-32, why should we
>> need UTF-16 or UTF-8?
>
> You got to be kidding.


1. To be more precise what I meant is, the compiler should support the
largest character type supported by the system (OS), and if it supports
Unicode, the largest Unicode type supported by the OS.

Otherwise are we going to accumulate Unicodes for the next 10 years as
built-in types and supported literals?


And on an OS that does not support Unicode, would the compiler writer
have to provide all these Unicode types?

I am not much in Unicode types and text manipulation, but the built-in
approach of this magnitude feels wrong to me.



>> 1) We could use only the largest Unicode type.
>>
>> 2) I think that could be provided only via wchar_t.
>
> ...which means, at least for those whose information is stored using mainly
> the BMP code points, occupying 4x the space that is needed to store that
> very same information.


Does any OS really exist that supports more than one Unicode types in
its APIs?