On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 07:01:23AM -0700, L A Walsh wrote: > George wrote: > >On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 16:16 -0700, L A Walsh wrote: > >>George wrote: > >>>On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 15:59 +0700, Peter & Kelly Passchier wrote: > >>>>On 05/06/2560 15:52, George wrote: > >>>>>there's not a reliable mechanism in place to run a script in a > >>>>>locale whose character encoding doesn't match that of the script
> Right. The 1st paragraph (written by you), above, mentions that. > Given the 1st paragraph (which no one is contesting), we are only > talking about the case where the run locale and script locale are the same. You need someone to explicit say it? OK, I'll say it. Scripts that can only *run* in a UTF-8 encoding-locale are a bad idea. The whole world is not UTF-8, despite what a few people seem to think. That's in addition to all of the issues that arise when trying to *edit* a script that was written in one or more character set encodings that are different from yours. One could almost make a viable case that "only people on UTF-8 computers are allowed to be developers". Almost. But if you also intend to exclude such people from even being able to *run* your script, I can't take any of this seriously. (OK, in reality, I am not taking any of this seriously. This entire proposal and discussion are like some bizarre fantasy land to me. Bash is a SHELL, for god's sake. Not a serious programming language. Even serious programming languages are not ready for this; see the Python proposal that was mentioned up-thread.)
