On 6/2/17 1:16 AM, L A Walsh wrote:
>
>
> dualbus wrote:
>>
>> - People then have to test the new implementation, to ensure that there
>> are no regressions, and no new bugs introduced. I'm happy to volunteer
>> once there's a working implementation.
>>
>> - There are some questions that must be answered first:
>>
>> * How do you how to decode multibyte character sequences into Unicode?
>> Should UTF-8 be assumed?
>>
> You realize bash already allows UTF-8 input?
Sure. The difference is that it depends on the current locale.
>> What prevents you from using?
>> phi='...'
>>
> ---
> Again, you are changing the requirement.
He's not actually changing the requirement here.
> I don't suppose we wanted something more expressive or symbolic?
That's the essential question: is the cost of such a change worth the
improvement in the expressive power of the language? Will enough people
take advantange of the new feature to justify the implementation and
support effort?
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU c...@case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
