> From: Andrea Corallo <acora...@gnu.org> > Cc: Stefan Kangas <stefankan...@gmail.com>, monn...@iro.umontreal.ca, > mattias.engdeg...@gmail.com, caso...@gmail.com, 70...@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2024 11:48:36 -0400 > > Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org> writes: > > >> From: Stefan Kangas <stefankan...@gmail.com> > >> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 15:15:25 -0700 > >> Cc: mattias.engdeg...@gmail.com, acora...@gnu.org, caso...@gmail.com, > >> 70...@debbugs.gnu.org > >> > >> Stefan Monnier <monn...@iro.umontreal.ca> writes: > >> > >> >> And against the additional variable to make this more > >> >> backward-compatible? > >> > > >> > Yup. The var would be my second-best choice (and I assume it's > >> > immediately declared obsolete). > >> > >> I tend to agree with Stefan M here. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Andrea, would you please voice your opinion on this? > > I'm for returning unibyte indeed. And for the variable or the second > function I'm kind of neutral, I'd do it only if it's not too much effort > so I'll trust Mattias preference here.
OK, so let's go with unconditionally unibyte, as it seems to be the consensus here.
