Unicode 支持需要 wchar_t 吗? [英] Is wchar_t needed for unicode support?

问题描述

Unicode 支持是否需要 wchar_t 类型?如果不是，那么这种多字节类型的意义何在?当你可以用 char 完成同样的事情时，你为什么要使用 wchar_t?

Is the wchar_t type required for unicode support? If not then what's the point of this multibyte type? Why would you use wchar_t when you could accomplish the same thing with char?

推荐答案

No.

从技术上讲，没有.Unicode 是一种定义代码点的标准，它不需要特定的编码.

No.

Technically, no. Unicode is a standard that defines code points and it does not require a particular encoding.

因此，您可以将 unicode 与 UTF-8 编码一起使用，然后所有内容都可以放入一个或一小段 char 对象序列中，并且它甚至仍会以 null 结尾.

So, you could use unicode with the UTF-8 encoding and then everything would fit in a one or a short sequence of char objects and it would even still be null-terminated.

UTF-8 和 UTF-16 的问题在于 s[i] 不一定是一个字符，它可能只是一个字符的一部分，而对于足够宽的字符，您可以保留 s[i] 是单个字符的抽象，但它不会使 strings 在各种转换下成为固定长度.

The problem with UTF-8 and UTF-16 is that s[i] is not necessarily a character any more, it might be just a piece of one, whereas with sufficiently wide characters you can preserve the abstraction that s[i] is a single character, tho it does not make strings fixed-length under various transformations.

32 位整数至少足够宽以解决代码点问题，但它们仍然无法处理极端情况，例如，大写某些内容可以改变字符数.

32-bit integers are at least wide enough to solve the code point problem but they still don't handle corner cases, e.g., upcasing something can change the number of characters.

所以结果证明x[i]问题即使通过char32_t也没有完全解决，而那些其他编码的文件格式很差.

So it turns out that the x[i] problem is not completely solved even by char32_t, and those other encodings make poor file formats.

那么，您暗示的观点是非常有效的:wchar_t 是一个失败，部分原因是 Windows 仅将其设置为 16 位，部分原因是它没有解决所有问题，并且与字节流抽象.

Your implied point, then, is quite valid: wchar_t is a failure, partly because Windows made it only 16 bits, and partly because it didn't solve every problem and was horribly incompatible with the byte stream abstraction.

这篇关于Unicode 支持需要 wchar_t 吗?的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！