[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: char-to-string

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: char-to-string
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 15:42:51 +0200

> Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 20:29:30 +0900 (JST)
> From: Kenichi Handa <address@hidden>
> > No.  I just thought about the possibility that some primitive might
> > convert unibyte characters such as \200 into multibyte eight-bit-*
> > characters (to provide the behavior users expect).  If such cases do
> > exist, they might conflict with this change.
> I don't know what kind of confliction you are afraid of.

It was a simple unexplained unconscious fear of changing core
fnctionality that took lots of efforts to get right.  Kind of
pre-release cold-feet syndrome ;-)

> > Yes, but I remember that some of the primitives silently convert
> > between unibyte and multibyte because users expect that.  Isn't that
> > the case?
> The conversion that users expect is, for instance, this kind
> of ones (assuming Latin-1 lang. env.):
>    (concat "\300" " is  (Latin1 A-grave)") => " is  (Latin1 A-grave)"
> In this case, the unibyte string "\300" is converted to ""
> to keep the semantics of character, not to keep the code of character.

If the reason for the conversion was the bug you just fixed, then I
guess we are safe.

Thanks for the explanations.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]