Re: coreutils and i18n

[Bruno Haible]

Jim Meyering wrote:
> As for i18n, some students nearly took on the project of implementing a
> palatable solution recently, but that's been deferred for a few months.

Interesting... In 2001 you set out the following requirements for such
a solution:
  - Processing in unibyte locales should not become significantly slower
    than before.
  - Code duplication should be avoided, for maintainability.
  - Macros which expand to one thing in the multibyte case and to another
    thing for the unibyte case are not acceptable.

How will this students' project solve this dilemma?

Bruno