Re: Experimental UNICODE-only MinGW Build]

[João Garcia <jgarcia at uk2 dot net>]

Hi Mohan,

I apologize for the misunderstanding. It was my fault.

When I said that I would be against implementing only the unicode 
solution, that was
not that radical! I would still choose your patch even as it is right 
now (and I thought
this had been made clear enough from my part). Your patch is a step 
forward and,
as I said before, I like it very much.


>>None of those changes would be strictly necessary at the moment, if you
>>would implement the unicode configuration switch. And we could start
>>by replacing only JV_TEMP_STRING for the Win32 version.
>
>
>This is correct. I just didn't want to postpone the inevitable and
>continue using ANSI when we can use UNICODE.
>

I can understand that.
I would only like to make the transition in a more smooth fashion... And 
your patch
already helps a lot in this direction!


>>If you still want to argue against all this, please find something
>>really relevant for
>>not to support the configuration switch (a simple "#define" statement
>>and a command line
>>parameter). Otherwise we are both loosing precious time!
>
>
>The relevant point here is that some volunteer will have to
>build and test this extra configuration with every subsequent
>patch that is checked in.
>

If I am fighting for this, the least I can do is to offer my self as a 
candidate
(if you all would be willing to accept me).

But I am not sure of what that means (in terms of test work and 
know-how) because
I have never done that for a project like this one...
Can you be more specific (if you think that I can be a candidate)?
And are you willing to help me along with my learning process?
(it is useless for me to be a candidate if I do not meet the 
requirements...)

>I'm going to post my patch and let the list decide. I assume that
>whoever reviews this will have questions that you can answer.
>

I will help in anything I can (even if the decision is not to support 
the UNICODE
switch). I have never changed my position about your patch (it is a 
major step forward).
I had said that I would support it without question.


João