On 2014-08-14 13:13:45 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > Vincent Lefevre wrote: > >The problem with this solution is that it would change the length > >of the text, while replacing invalid bytes by zero bytes could be > >done in place (if allowed), with very little change of the code, > >I think. > > True. Though it might be more user-friendly to use '?' as the > replacement byte.
On output, yes (though in most cases, non-printable characters are probably seen as garbage and don't really matter); and when the lines are not printed, this doesn't matter. On input, using null bytes may be better if one wants to be able to match real replacement characters without false positives. Matching null bytes is not common, AFAIK. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
