Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Why can we assume setlocale exists?
Because we haven't encountered systems without a setlocale() for 10 years.
The last such system that I remember was Linux libc5 5.0.xx or 5.2.xx.
> Is it POSIX?
Even more: It's specified by ISO C 99.
Bruno
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The reason is that HAVE_SETLOCALE is tested, but nowhere defined. Since one
> can assume setlocale() already for ca. 5 years, there is no risk in removing
> the HAVE_SETLOCALE. Here is a proposed patch.
I'm still testing for setlocale in libidn. Why can
Subject: Re: hello-2.1.93 internationalization doesn't work
Yikes.
The reason is that HAVE_SETLOCALE is tested, but nowhere defined.
Applied the patch. Thanks.
$ locale
LANG=de_DE.UTF-8
LC_CTYPE="de_DE.UTF-8"
LC_NUMERIC="de_DE.UTF-8"
LC_TIME="de_DE.UTF-8"
LC_COLLATE=POSIX
LC_MONETARY="de_DE.UTF-8"
LC_MESSAGES="de_DE.UTF-8"
LC_PAPER="de_DE.UTF-8"
LC_NAME="de_DE.UTF-8"
LC_ADDRESS="de_DE.UTF-8"
LC_TELEPHONE="de_DE.UTF-8"
LC_MEASUREMENT="de_DE.UTF-8"
LC_IDENT
