Re: wily 0.13.42

  • From: Gary Capell <gary@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Ian Broster <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 17:04:30 +1000

On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 07:57:11AM +0200, Ian Broster wrote:
> >I'm not sure this is a bug we want to fix?  I'm guessing that this
> >is because (not surprisingly) some bits of /bin/echo aren't valid
> >UTF8.
> I see.
> However it does seem to break a rather fundamental assumption that a load  
> then save will not corrupt the file.

Agreed.  Hence the "ReadOnly" suggestion.

> Most text editors seem ok with binry files (presumably because the don't  
> do UTF at all); despite the technical difficulties of doing so in wily, I  
> think it's worth another think.
> >we'd have to maintain two copies of the file:
> >the version with valid UTF, and the original version with invalid
> >UTF.
> 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)?  

Gary Capell <gary@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Other related posts: