Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org>: >> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:18:32 +0100 >> From: <to...@tuxteam.de> >> I think the only sane way to see a Linux file system path is the way >> Linux sees it: as a byte string. > > This would lose a lot in 99% of use cases. You are, in effect, > suggesting a "reverse optimization", whereby the majority of use cases > is punished in favor of a small minority, based on theoretical > intractability.
I think this is a question of software security as well. These "theoretical" loopholes could be used for sabotage that evades testing. >> Sure, some helper infrastructure to try to make characters of that >> mess will be welcome, but that should be absolutely robust wrt. >> unexpected input e.g. bad UTF-8) and leave control to the >> application. > > Most applications won't like this burden, because most application > programmers don't know enough about the issue to solve them correctly, > especially for users of other OSes and locales. AFAIK, Windows allows pathnames that are illegal Unicode as well, namely pathnames with isolated surrogate code points (<URL: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/12056>). I don't have access to a Windows machine so maybe somebody else could confirm my suspicion. Marko