On 6/6/17 4:08 AM, Peter & Kelly Passchier wrote:
>
>
> 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.
"Only supporting UTF-8" doesn't resolve the issue, which is not encoding-
related. And of course there needs to be additional code in bash no
matter what approach is used.
--
``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/
