On 6/6/17 10:40 AM, PePa wrote:
> On 06/06/2560 21:20, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> Scripts that can only *run* in a UTF-8 encoding-locale are a bad idea.
>
> Even currently, when functions in a bash script are beyond ASCII, they
> can still be run anywhere. I would imagine it would be the same when
> variable names are also allowed to be in some unicode encoding.
No. We're not talking about a free-for-all like function names, which are
essentially uninterpreted byte streams, but using alphanumerics from the
current locale as an extension to the Posix portable character set. In
this case, the encoding doesn't matter -- it's how the character properties
are assigned in the character set.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU c...@case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
