Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le

[David Kastrup]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii writes:
>
>  > Maybe it is (I didn't yet have time to look at the code), but there
>  > could be a good reason for that.  If it's so easy to recognize the
>  > BOM, why do we need versions with and without it?
>
> I don't know, in fact I think I think it's a bad idea.  That's what
> the part of my message that you snipped was saying.  But I'll have to
> defer to Handa-san on that.

I think it obvious: if a BOM mark gets detected on read, one wants to
have it removed from the buffer and reinserted on saving the buffer.

I am just not sure what the semantics for recoding/encoding/decoding
regions are.  They should not mess with BOM in any case, I would
suppose.  But then reading a file is not equivalent to reading it
literally in unibyte mode and then decoding the buffer-region.

Maybe there never was such an equivalence (can't be for shift codes, can
it?).

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum