Re: utf-16 and glib

["Martin (OPENGeoMap)" <martin opengeomap org>]

Maciej Piechotka escribió:
> On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 23:48 +0100, Martin (OPENGeoMap) wrote:
>   
> > Dominic Lachowicz escribió:
> >     
> > > > > > What is wrong with:
> > > > > > gchar*  g_utf8_strncpy  (gchar *dest,const gchar *src,gsize n);
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         
> > > > > >             
> > > > > That's one not needed as strncpy should work.
> > > > >
> > > > >       
> > > > >           
> > > > hehe i know but that function it really exist:
> > > > http://library.gnome.org/devel/glib/unstable/glib-Unicode-Manipulation.html#g-utf8-strncpy
> > > >     
> > > >         
> > > It does make sense. strncpy copies N bytes, when what you want to do
> > > is copy N characters from a multi-byte encoded string. You don't want
> > > to the copy to stop somewhere in the middle of a multi-byte character
> > > sequence because the result simply wouldn't make sense.
> > >
> > >   
> > >       
> > > > > > and the macro:
> > > > > > gtext*  g_text_strncpy  (gtext*dest,const gtext*src,gsize n);
> > > > > >         
> > > > > >             
> > > Because having 2 implementations of a function and having 1
> > > automatically chosen by a pre-processor macro is one of the worst API
> > > decisions that Microsoft has ever made. And that's saying something.
> > >
> > >
> > >   
> > >       
> > Glib/gtk is full of macros.
> >     
>
> But how many of them changes the meaning by other 'switch-macro'? I'm
> nearly sure that all of them evaluate to the same values at each gived
> platform.
>
>   
> > I believe que a C compiler is the right 
> > place to this kind of unsafe code.
> >     
>
> What do you mean by 'unsafe'? If the 'unsafe' code is unsafe there is no
> place to put it. If the 'unsafe' means that the code cannot be verified
> easily by compiler if it is correct that there is place in C code (or
> any other).
>   
by unsafe i want say something like the g-signal-connect macro:
http://library.gnome.org/devel/gobject/unstable/gobject-Signals.html#g-signal-connect
>   
> > If i want create safe code i have 
> > c#,c++, JAVA, D or VALA.
> > Using macros is the only way to ensure intermediate APIs don´t have any 
> > overhead.
> >     
>
> How much is the overhead? How big it is in compare to for example I/O in
> accessing filesystem, drawing in access to GTK+ or to GC in access to
> C#/Java?
>   
hummm.
Example:
If we have for example a DWG binary file we have for example 15000 utf16 
strings. If i use glib i need make 15000 translations utf16/utf8 to use 
the utf8 glib api.  When i need save the file i need make other 15000 
translations. There are thounsand of formats using utf16. I don´t love 
utf16, but I "MUST" use utf16 in the real world. I am not the guilty of 
existence of utf16 :'( .

Regards.