Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] possible typechecker bug
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2003-09-19 (11:48)
From: Ville-Pertti Keinonen <will@e...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Commercial application written in O'Caml: ExcelEverywhere
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 10:01:15AM +0200, Mattias Waldau wrote:

> Disadvantage
> - 8-bits strings.
>   UNICODE is needed and the standard for .NET, Java, Ruby...

8-bit strings can be used to represent Unicode just fine.  Better,
in fact, than the 16-bit wide characters found in some places, since
they support encoding up to 31 bits per character and don't have
byte order issues.  And for places where you need O(1) indexing, a
suitable Bigarray (or even just an int array) can be used as an
alternate string representation.

I think Unicode support should be a matter of library functionality,
not native string representation.  There is at least one Unicode
library available for OCaml (

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: