Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author: Markus Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.utf8
>
> > There's also an issue of '0' not being the same as 'default' conflicting
> > with VT100 compatibility ... but I need to check some things first.
>
> ECMA-48 implies nowhere that the default of every parameter for every
> control function has to be 0, otherwise quote the exact section. The
> default is specified for every function. I see no conflict with VT100
> compatibility here and it is absolutely trivial to write a parameter
> parser properly such that 0 and default are distinguishable.
>
He's not talking about violating ECMA-48, but rather about violating
established practice. Furthermore, the zero default mode (ZDM) is
referenced in section F.4.2, referring to a previous version of the
standard in which the explicit number 0 and the default (omitted
parameter) were considered syntactically equivalent. Even though that
is listed as obsolete, I have unfortunately seen parsers which rely on
it, especially since it's not really ECMA-48/ISO 6429 that people
tended to mimic, but the equivalent ANSI standard, the DEC VT terminal
series (ESPECIALLY this one), and/or the IBM PC ANSI.SYS.
-hpa
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at work, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
