Talk:OS2 API:Unicode: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Anyone know of good documentation for the Unicode API? | Anyone know of good documentation for the Unicode API? | ||
What I'd like to know is if what I'm referencing is really using c parameters/returns versus the OS/2 declared ones like ULONG, etc. For example, [[ | What I'd like to know is if what I'm referencing is really using c parameters/returns versus the OS/2 declared ones like ULONG, etc. For example, [[UniStrToUcs]] returns an int according to the docs I'm reading. Ought this be APIRET? [[User:Prokushev|Prokushev]], I think this API will be problematic with keeping language specific features out. How shall I handle void**? - [[User:Daniel.lee.kruse|Daniel]] | ||
I think we should just describe such types like we does for, for example, ULONG. Like integer is signed 32-bit integer in range -xxxx..+xxxx. | I think we should just describe such types like we does for, for example, ULONG. Like integer is signed 32-bit integer in range -xxxx..+xxxx. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
---[[User:Prokushev|Prokushev]] | ---[[User:Prokushev|Prokushev]] | ||
OK, who's correct? I've found [http://www.warpspeed.com.au/cgi-bin/inf2html.cmd?..\html\book\Toolkt40\UNIAPI.INF+830 UniCode.INF] where fields are defined [[ | OK, who's correct? I've found [http://www.warpspeed.com.au/cgi-bin/inf2html.cmd?..\html\book\Toolkt40\UNIAPI.INF+830 UniCode.INF] where fields are defined [[SHORT]] versus c's short (ya, I know, they are the same value-wise) in the html file supplied with eComStation 1.2MR's Toolkit. If the INF is correct my question above is moot on the integer declarations. | ||
-- [[User:Daniel.lee.kruse|Daniel]] | -- [[User:Daniel.lee.kruse|Daniel]] | ||
Latest revision as of 10:46, 6 December 2019
Anyone know of good documentation for the Unicode API?
What I'd like to know is if what I'm referencing is really using c parameters/returns versus the OS/2 declared ones like ULONG, etc. For example, UniStrToUcs returns an int according to the docs I'm reading. Ought this be APIRET? Prokushev, I think this API will be problematic with keeping language specific features out. How shall I handle void**? - Daniel
I think we should just describe such types like we does for, for example, ULONG. Like integer is signed 32-bit integer in range -xxxx..+xxxx.
void** is pointer to pointer on undefined type. For example, in Pascal we have ^Pointer for this construction.
So, actually, no many problems here, I think.
---Prokushev
OK, who's correct? I've found UniCode.INF where fields are defined SHORT versus c's short (ya, I know, they are the same value-wise) in the html file supplied with eComStation 1.2MR's Toolkit. If the INF is correct my question above is moot on the integer declarations. -- Daniel
Well, according to usual OS/2 practic all compiler depended things shadowed by defines (SHORT instead of short). It seems later libraries (with now common OS/2 knowlidges) broke this rule. If we want to be still OS/2 aware them my vote for SHORT and such macros usage.
---Prokushev