Re: (aset UNIBYTE-STRING MULTIBYTE-CHAR)

[Kenichi Handa]

In article <address@hidden>, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

> > That inefficiency may or may not be important in any given context.
> > Fixing it in casefiddle is definitely desirable.
> > But is it worth breaking all such packages just so that they
> > will optimize an operation that might not use much of the time anyway?

> Why work around the problem in `aset' if it isn't worth fixing in the
> original code?

But you wrote:

> > Then, shouldn't we start the experiment of inhibitting aset
> > on strings just now?
> 
> But I do not think we're ready for that.  Maybe 10 years from now...

I want to avoid treating non-ASCII chars different from
ASCII.  Then, the only solution is to make aset work well
for multibyte characters.

> Especially since implicit conversion of a unibyte-string
> to multibyte is generally a bug in itself (since there are as many ways
> to do that as there are coding systems).

It's not a bug but I agree it's a very bad feature.  But for
the case (aset (string ?a) 0 MULTIBYTE-CHAR), I think it's
better to treat "a" as neutral, or in your terminology
"anybyte".

---
Kenichi Handa
address@hidden