On 06/06/2560 14:37, George wrote: > Broadly speaking I think the approach taken in Eduardo's patch > (interpreting the byte sequence according to the rules of its character > encoding) is better than the approach taken in current versions of Bash > (letting 0x80-0xFF slide through the parser) - but that approach only > works if you know the correct character encoding to use when processing > the script. The information has to be provided in the script somehow.
I think only supporting UTF-8 would be the easiest, it allows all glyphs to be used. And no extra declaration needs to be added to bash. Peter
