On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 04:55:24PM +0900, Daiki Ueno wrote: >> Ben Pfaff <b...@cs.stanford.edu> writes: >> >> > New module 'unistr/u8-mb-prev-uc'. >> > New module 'unistr/u16-mb-prev-uc'. >> > New module 'unistr/u32-mb-prev-uc'. >> >> Thanks, looks good to me. Some nit-picking below. >> >> * _GL_UNUSED_PARAMETER of u32_mb_prev_uc seems to be a leftover, as the >> argument is actually used in the implementation. >> >> * The largest value of possible leading octet tested in >> test-u8-mb-prev-uc.c:exhaustive_test is 0xf5, while there are checks >> against 0xf8 in u8-mb-prev-uc.c. Also code units above the surrogate >> code-point are not checked in u16 and u32 tests. >> * The license of u{8,16,32}-mbtouc changed to LGPLv2+ some >> time ago, maybe good to follow the change? > > All of the above are good points. I will fix them in v5. > >> > v3->v4: Changed the code to always be "safe". It looks to me like the >> > "unsafe" version that I had written originally reflected a >> > misunderstanding of how the gnulib option for that was supposed to work. >> >> Are you going to add "unsafe" version later, or is it not useful at all? > > I do not have a use myself for unsafe versions, but I will add them if > you think they are a good idea. Let me know.
What is your opinion on this issue?