RE: proposed Eistring interface

Bill> You might indeed. I'm not exactly sure why you'd want to do Bill> that, but that's you call. :) Seems like a waste of a large Bill> chunk of memory if you make it your internal representation Bill> without a fairly compelling reason.... _Default_ internal representation. UCS-2 is a massive waste of space if an ISO-8859 set will do. We plan to allow at least 1-byte and variable width internal representations, and then extend to 2-byte and 4-byte internal representations. The default internal representation being discussed here would be used for internal buffering etc, and would not (as planned, anyway) be imposed on editing buffers or Lisp strings. See my other message for further discussion. You may not consider it compelling, but looking at the history of Mule over the last 12 years, I think it is nearly certain that some people, probably including Ken'ichi Handa, will want access to a language-tag- in-character representation. Unlike Henry Ford, we do not plan to allow people to use any character set they like "as long as it's black." I'm pretty sure that some of the people we would most like to have using XEmacs (Japanese Mule developers) would be quite adamently opposed to UTF-16. Besides, we're just following the example of your employer: embracing and extending. :-) -- University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091 _________________ _________________ _________________ _________________ What are those straight lines for? "XEmacs rules."