Talk:C wide string handling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject C/C++ (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject C/C++, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of C/C++ on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This redirect does not require a rating on the quality scale.


As much as I've experienced wchar.h is a mess of stateful programming depending on LOCALE and essentially making programs non-portable. Maybe we should mention something about LOCALE and statefulness (in a neutral tone)? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Move to C wide string handling[edit]

I've moved the article to C wide string handling for the following reasons:

  1. Consistency with other articles about C Standard Library components, such as C string handling, C mathematical functions
  2. The article in it's current form is not encyclopedic and it's very hard to make it as such. The actual subject of the article is the contents of wchar.h as opposed to wchar.h itself which is just some file. For more information see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stdlib.h.
  3. Parts of the current contents are already duplicated in other articles such as C file input/output.

If anyone opposes, please raise your concerns and suggestions here. I do not think that this move will be final action, a merge with C string handling might be a sensible solution also. 1exec1 (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge with C string handling[edit]

I think the articles cover subjects similar enough that we can merge the articles. C string and C wide string have more or less the same definition, interface and implementation, just the size of the character differs (char for C strings, wchar_t for C wide strings). There's actually not much material unique to C wide strings:

  • The character encoding is already covered in both articles.
  • The function tables are almost identical, only the function names differ.

I think the quality would increase greatly if the articles were merged, because a lot of duplication would be eliminated. 1exec1 (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Since I've got absolutely no input, I decided to be bold and merge the articles myself. Some of the content was more appropriate for other articles such as Character encoding and since it was already well covered there, I've not merged that content. 1exec1 (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)