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