Fredrik Lundh wrote: > > paul wrote: > > If we're going to restrict people to ASCII-like encodings, we > > could just restrict them to ASCII and get it over with. > > Sorry, you lost me there... in what part(s) of the source file > should we restrict users to pure ASCII? > > (in string literals? unicode string literals? the entire script?) The entire script. If we're going to require a Japanse user to use 3 bytes to encode some character then we might as well require them to use backslash syntax. I mean if we're going to be revolutionary, then we could take the XML route. * require the encoding pragma to be the first line * auto-detect one-byte, two-byte based on #? * figure out precise encoding from directive Otherwise, I'm not sure if we're making enough progress. Westerners probably won't bother to put in the directive as long as their code works fine without it. -- Paul Prescod - Not encumbered by corporate consensus Just how compassionate can a Republican get before he has to leave the GOP and join Vegans for Global Justice? ... One moment, George W. Bush is holding a get-to-know-you meeting with a bunch of gay Republicans. The next he is holding forth on education or the environment ... It is enough to make a red-blooded conservative choke on his spotted-owl drumstick. - April 29th, Economist
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4