status of utf-8 patch

[Larry Hall (Cygwin)]

Matt Seitz wrote:
> "Brian Dessent" <brian@dessent.net> wrote in message 
> news:46921D75.29CE8798@dessent.net...
>> Ariel Burbaickij wrote:
>>
>>> question: what is  the status of utf-8 patch fo cygwin? Is it
>> You can find all the details in the mailing list archives.
>> <http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2006-q3/msg00014.html>
>>
>>> endorsed/supported?
>> It was submitted and rejected on technical grounds, which means sadly
>> it's not supported here.
> 
> The explanation I saw for the rejection was "...it should just be a 
> wholesale replacement, not a bunch of wrappers around existing functions."
> 
> It's now a year later.  Is there an expectation that the "wholesale 
> replacement" or another solution is coming soon?  What would be the harm in 
> adopting the current solution for now?  Is this a case of "the perfect is 
> the enemy of the good"? 


No.  It's more like the "the limited hack is the enemy of future progress".
It should be _a_little_ easier to implement something maintainable with
1.7 code (in CVS), since Win9x support is no longer a requirement.

-- 
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd.                          (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/