Author
I have recently purchased the book
Programming windows (fifth Edition) by Charles Petzold
and it focuses highly on Unicode, but my question is that all the writer seems to speak of is WIndows 98, which is strange is on the front cover it says, designed for XP,2000 and ME etc.
He speaks of WIndows98 being partially written for Unicode, ie that only a fraction of the functions have wide character support, and that you should have your code outputable in both ascii and Unicode forms, for operating systems that dont support Unicode.
But if windows 98 was on partially Unicode compatible, would that mean that XP must be fully Unicode compatable.
And with most people running XP or later, and with Linux and MAC systems being unicode compatable, is there still a need for having our code accessable in both ascii and unicode forms.
Im just questioning, because this book seems to have been written a good while ago, and i wanted to know how things are with unicode at the moment
I hope ive understood things right,
Petzold wrote that book when Windows 98 ruled the roost. The contents apply to XP, 2000 and ME etc.
NT,2000,XP are Unicode native. That is, all of the strings used by the kernel are unicode. So yes, fully Unicode compatible.
The one exception to that, is that the PE file format uses Ansi strings to store function names and the like. That is more on the user side of things not the kernel.
As for whether there is still a need for having our code accessible in both Ansi (not ascii) and Unicode forms... I couldn't say if there's still that need, but writing such code is easy enough so I would say do it.
NT,2000,XP are Unicode native. That is, all of the strings used by the kernel are unicode. So yes, fully Unicode compatible.
The one exception to that, is that the PE file format uses Ansi strings to store function names and the like. That is more on the user side of things not the kernel.
As for whether there is still a need for having our code accessible in both Ansi (not ascii) and Unicode forms... I couldn't say if there's still that need, but writing such code is easy enough so I would say do it.
Author
ahh yes, i believe it was you who recommended this book to me, even though ive read very very little, i think im very pleased with it, it certainly seems worth the money.
Iv also gone through some of the programs on the disc, and and cant wait to learn how to make them.
i think that this book is a bargin, have you read the whole thing??
i suppose it is a lot of text code, so it might not take that long
Iv also gone through some of the programs on the disc, and and cant wait to learn how to make them.
i think that this book is a bargin, have you read the whole thing??
i suppose it is a lot of text code, so it might not take that long
Yes, I've read the whole thing although it was some time ago. I have a .chm version of it, so if you have specific questions about portions of the book, I can do my best to help you with them.
To quote from the section on "Wide Characters and C":
To quote from the section on "Wide Characters and C":
Quote:
Wide characters aren't necessarily Unicode. Unicode is one possible wide-character encoding. However, because the focus in this book is Windows rather than an abstract implementation of C, I will tend to speak of wide characters and Unicode synonymously.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
