Hi Pádraig, > > What is your position regarding these three approaches today? Or do you > > see > > another approach, in order to avoid code duplication while keeping the > > code > > maintainable? > > For simple loops I think it's feasible to duplicate. > For more involved logic it's best to not duplicate.
Is the 'fnmatch' module approach, with a .h file that gets included twice, acceptable to you? That is, would it be OK to have a coreutils program be implemented through a .c file and a .h file for the core loop? Or do you insist on the code being contained in a single .c file? That was the main point that led me to giving up on coreutils i18n. > > * You write: "Note wchar_t is only 16 bits on windows" > > The wchar_t problem has been solved through the char32_t type, which is > > well > > supported in Gnulib now, see > > > > https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/Comparison-of-character-APIs.html > > > > * Beyond what is multibyte functionality specified by POSIX, the feature I > > would love most to see in coreutils is for 'fold' to support line > > breaking > > according to the Unicode line breaking algorithm. This would make 'fold' > > useful e.g. in Chinese, where spaces are not used to separate words. > > This would imply adding an option > > fold --unicode > > and making use of the Gnulib module 'unilbrk/ulc-width-linebreaks' or > > 'unilbrk/ulc-possible-linebreaks'. > > I've updated the page with the above info. Thanks. Bruno
