Re: Visual Objects 2.7

Rob Panosh wrote:
> Malcolm,
>> made it compulsory many of us would not upgrade.
> IMHO including it into version 2.7 would have been the perfect
> opportunity. Adding Unicode support should be seemless and
> shouldn't cause the developer any greif.

I would like it to be seamless but I don't see how to offer both
    backwards compatability with 8 bit char
    seamless use of unicode
without quite a lot of compiler switches and confusion.