Re: Experimental UNICODE-only MinGW Build

[João Garcia <jgarcia at uk2 dot net>]

Mohan Embar wrote:

> For the record: are you very much against a UNICOWS solution or would
> you tolerate it?
>
>  
My main argument against W-functions is not that Win9X is widely used 
(which it is not)! My main arguments are:
1- it is not the fastest path, in terms of code maintenance, to make 
things work across java.io, java.nio, etc. ("make it work first; 
optimize later");
2- I do not see any strong reason to break Win9X support.

But I will tolerate it (you will force me to do the "mini-unicows" dll 
-- may the Valar give me time and wisdom to do it right ;-) ). I, 
probably, will have no choice here.
I still think it is not the logical development path at this moment for 
a project like this...
Sorry Mohan, but I really do not understand your priorities! But I can 
be wrong on my own ones... :-)

Nevertheless, I will submit a mixed A/W patch (as you had suggest it) as 
soon as it is ready (it is almost) and tested (I'll  have to find time 
do build 3.4...). But, as things are right now, I do not really care if 
it makes it to the FSF sources or not... :-)

Thank you once again Mohan!

> This would be interesting, but the time I allotted myself for this
> is already depleted and in the negative zone. :)
I can guess that... :-)
I am sorry if I have forced you into loosing some more time. But I 
thought that my simple suggestion could solve the problem for now (I 
still think it can), and that it would not give you too much extra work 
or problems cheking it in...


João