Renaming sal_Unicode to a less misleading name?
khaledhosny at eglug.org
Mon Feb 15 19:45:21 UTC 2016
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 05:57:25PM +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> >yeah, I mentioned the le/be variant to be 'complete', I will certainly
> >concede that it would likely be overkill.
> >still having sal_utf16. sal_utf32 and even sal_utf8 would not hurt,
> >especailly comapred to sal_Int32, sal_Unicode, sal_Char respectively
> Instead of introducing yet more typedefs, we'll more and more move to C++11
> char16_t, char32_t (which already started, now that sal_Unicode is a typedef
> for char16_t, for non-WNT LIBO_INTERNAL).
That would be my preference as well, so what about replacing internal
uses of sal_Unicode with char16_t?
More information about the LibreOffice