On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 05:37:38PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Ie, as long as the user supplies the right encodings. Thus condemning > the Chinese and Japanese to (at best) inadvertant binary treatment of > many of their files, and (at worst) corruption of data.
Actually, the same logic should also work for at least Big5, Shift-JIS and EUC. UTF-16 is more tricky, though I imagine Darcs could check for a BOM if anyone felt the need. What's the alternative? Make Darcs encoding-aware? I suspect that would cause more problems than it solves. Insist on UTF-8? How's that an improvement? > As for backward compatibility, the time to break with backward > compatibility is almost always "as early as possible", because all too > soon you end up with "ten minutes ago or never". I think think that depends on the reason. 'Because maintaining compatibility is causing problems', or 'because we're crusading'. I see few problems with the status quo (at least w.r.t. Darcs), and nothing to gain by being more strict. -- Jamie Webb _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
