Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: printf %s in UTF-8 is not POSIX-compliant
- X-seq: zsh-workers 24697
- From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: printf %s in UTF-8 is not POSIX-compliant
- Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 18:29:44 -0800
- In-reply-to: <20080306174523.15633059@news01>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <20080304012917.GA15833@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200803040940.m249e7DC012517@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080305002721.GF15833@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200803051041.m25AfmUc031042@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <080306090901.ZM21797@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080306174523.15633059@news01>
On Mar 6, 5:45pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
} Subject: Re: printf %s in UTF-8 is not POSIX-compliant
} On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 09:09:01 -0800
} Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
} > However, if "emulate bash" is going to mean something other than a
} > synonym for "sh", then some effort should be put into being a bit
} > closer to bash than it's currently possible to be. For example,
} > at least set the various BASH_* options, the way "emulate csh" sets
} > the smattering of CSH_* options.
} I'm not sure the first sentence agrees with the second. Are you
} suggesting new options?
Well, I considered suggesting that we comprehend bash prompt sequences,
but then decided that was going too far. What I meant, I guess, was
"closer than it's currently possible to get by running 'emulate'".
} > A final thought on MULTIBYTE: Is it perhaps reasonable to split this
} > into two options, one that affects line editor operations and one that
} > affects internals?
} I think it can be done, and is reasonable if done properly, but is
} likely to be bug-prone in the case where one option is on and the
} other off.
Yes, that's exactly the issue. Regardless of the size or complexity of
the job to alter the C code, it's unreasonable if the result introduces
more script bugs than it fixes incompatibilities.
Messages sorted by: