Jim Meyering wrote:
> As for i18n, some students nearly took on the project of implementing a
> palatable solution recently, but that's been deferred for a few months.
Interesting... In 2001 you set out the following requirements for such
a solution:
- Processing in unibyte locales should not become significantly slower
than before.
- Code duplication should be avoided, for maintainability.
- Macros which expand to one thing in the multibyte case and to another
thing for the unibyte case are not acceptable.
How will this students' project solve this dilemma?
Bruno
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
