On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Rustom Mody <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 5, 2014 10:58:43 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> > That linux text is not the same thing as Python's text. Conceptually,
>> > Python text is a sequence of 32-bit integers. Linux text is a sequence
>> > of 8-bit integers.
>> Point of terminology: Linux is the kernel, everything you say below
>> here is talking about particular programs.
> If it helps try the following substitution:
> s/Linux/Pretty much all the distros that use Linux for their OS kernel/
You could look at the Debian Project, which is a full environment with
everything you're talking about. And everything you say would be
equally true of Debian Linux and Debian kfreebsd. :)
> BTW the only (other) guy I know who insistently makes that distinction is
> Richard Stallman.
> Are you an emacs user by any chance <wink>?
Nope! Just a terminology nerd. :)
>> From what I understand,
>> bash (just another Unix program) treats strings as sequences of
>> codepoints, just as Python does; though its string manipulation is not
>> nearly as rich as Python's, so it's harder to prove. Python is itself
>> a Unix program, so you can do the exact same proofs and demonstrate
>> that Linux is clearly Unicode-aware. It's not Linux you're testing.
> In these 'other programs' is it permissible to include the kernel
> And then ask how Linux (in your and Stallman's sense) differs from
> Windows in how the filesystem handles things like filenames?
What are you testing of the kernel? Most of the kernel doesn't
actually work with text at all - it works with integers, buffers of
memory (which could be seen as streams of bytes, but might be almost
anything), process tables, open file handles... but not usually text.
To you, "EAGAIN" might be a bit of text, but to the Linux kernel, it's
an integer (11 decimal, if I recall correctly). Is that some fancy new
form of encoding? :)