Re: some ismbc* functions: third try

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

"Greg Turner"  wrote:
> totally untested, but it does compile, and seems logical
> enough.  while i was at it, i added a few more.

Probably it would be better to create a common internal
function which accepts C1_???? flags, does all remaining
common operations with converting character(s) to unicode
and returns (ctype & flags) != 0?

some ismbc* functions: third try

[Greg Turner]

On Sunday 17 November 2002 01:26 am, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> "Greg Turner"  wrote:
> > totally untested, but it does compile, and seems logical
> > enough.  while i was at it, i added a few more.
>
> Probably it would be better to create a common internal
> function which accepts C1_???? flags, does all remaining
> common operations with converting character(s) to unicode
> and returns (ctype & flags) != 0?

Yes, I guess you are right, assuming this implementation really works, 
and these functions will remain as-is, without requiring a bunch of 
individualized tweaking...?  I'll try again.