Re: Renaming sal_Unicode to a less misleading name?

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Stephan Bergmann <sbergman@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 02/13/2016 04:21 PM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Khaled Hosny <khaledhosny@eglug.org>
> > wrote:
> > > I count only ~7000 usages across the code base, so that is not such a
> > > huge task.
> >
> > Internally it is doable, externally that is more of a problem, since
> > sal_Unicode is part of the stable external API.
> > The best you can do is to have an internal 'alias' for it.
>
>
> Or the worst, considering that you then confusingly have two names for the
> same concept.

are you confused by uint<n>_t typedef ?
they all 'alias' existing type.

> Trying to encode semantic differences (like between sal_utf16be and sal_utf16le) requires 
> discipline
indeed

> and when it starts to go sour it's probably worse than not trying to make the distinction in the 
> type system in the first place

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

Norbert