String literals, ASCII vs UTF-8
michael.meeks at suse.com
Tue Feb 28 03:41:49 PST 2012
On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 12:30 +0100, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> RTL_CONSTASCII_USTRINGPARAM. While I was ambivalent about it, I now think we
> should go with ASCII only, unless explicitly marked otherwise.
:-) your arguments make sense to me at least.
OUString( const char (&literal)[ N ] )
pData = 0;
- rtl_string2UString( &pData, literal, N - 1, RTL_TEXTENCODING_UTF8, OSTRING_TO_OUSTRING_CVTFLAGS );
+ rtl_string2UString( &pData, literal, N - 1, RTL_TEXTENCODING_ASCII_US, 0 );
I would really prefer to use a new:
rtl_uString_newFromAsciiL( &pNew, literal, N - 1 );
method - which should shrink the call-site, and allow for a rather
better implementation vs.
which has no fast-case for ASCII, and it requires these two extra
parameters we don't need to setup in each case :-)
Otherwise, this looks like some really nice work :-)
michael.meeks at suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
More information about the LibreOffice