Jim Starkey wrote:

>32 Unicode is intellectually defensible, but a terrible waste of
>storage. Why waste 4 bytes when probably 95% of the characters stored
>in Firebird world wide can be represented in a single byte?
>
>16 bit Unicode is well accepted on Windows and in Java, but can't handle
>some Asiatic character sets. Even if these character sets are
>relatively unimportant, does it make sense to define them out of
>architectural existence?
>
>

Jim,

I know one of the best software engineering practice is to reduce code
complexity, and I take this as the first rule to follow, since simple
code means less bugs, less time to understand and perhaps some other
bennefits. So I do just what is needed nothing more.

What I'd like to ask you is:

What about if FB has two character representations ? 32 bits Unicode and
16 bits Unicode. At database creation the type of charset to be used in
storage was choosen between the two kinds.

Why I ask it:
1.) Who needs only 16 bits unicode will not waste space (disk reads)
2.) Who needs 32 bits will have an option.

Don't know how dificult is to teach the engine internals to handle 2
diferent charsets (from what I understand from your messages, this will
be just "some" funcions).

This could be a case where implementing more complex code could lead to
a better sollution ?

see you !

--
Alexandre Benson Smith
Development
THOR Software e Comercial Ltda
Santo Andre - Sao Paulo - Brazil
www.thorsoftware.com.br