Re: wily 0.13.42
- From: Tommy Pettersson <ptp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: wilyfans@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:33:07 +0200
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 05:04:30PM +1000, Gary Capell wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 07:57:11AM +0200, Ian Broster wrote:
> > Is there no way to have a raw representation in memory and a best-effort
> > UTF8 render/manipulation?
> Of course there's a way (probably _lots_ of ways) to do it.
>
> The questions are:
> * do any of the ways have negligible impact on code complexity
> and efficiency (i.e. not requiring duplicate work on
> two copies of buffers)?
>
> * do the costs (time to design/write, added time for future
> work, efficiency cost, ... ) outweight the benefit
> (can edit by hand binary files)?
It is "possible" to edit binary files with wily like
<some_quoting_filter --encode <file
>some_quoting_filter --decode >file
It is probably both easier and cleaner to write such a filter
than to represent and special case invalid byte sequences inside
wily. To convenience heavy usage it could be written as an
rpc-client with BinGet and BinPut.
I think valid perl code may contain null bytes, but that's a
slightly different problem since that is valid utf.
--
Tommy Pettersson <ptp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Other related posts:
