On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Mike Williams wrote: > > Matt Wozniski wrote: >> This sounds like a very good idea to me. I don't know of any other >> programs that allow you to change encoding used internally, and we >> would be in good company if we chose to always use a unicode encoding >> internally: Java uses UTF-16 internally, and I believe python does as >> well. Is there any time when it would be desirable to use a >> non-unicode 'encoding' (assuming, of course, that +multi_byte is >> available)? I can't think of any. > > Yes, editing very large (say a few 100MB) data files that in a single > byte encoding. For my day job I regularly enjoy having to spelunk my > way around large files containing a mix of readable ASCII and binary > data. Using a Unicode encoding could make this prohibitive. Yes, this > is essentially a raw file edit mode, perhaps that should be an option - > or would it be part of setting binary mode?
How would using Unicode for 'enc' in any way affect this? Sure, you'd want to use a single-byte 'fenc', but no one is suggesting that the 'fenc' option should be removed. If there is a reason why editing binary files should be affected at all by what encoding the editor uses for storing the buffer text internally, I don't see it and you'll need to elaborate. ~Matt --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
