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: