Re: printf %s in UTF-8 is not POSIX-compliant

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.