Pádraig Brady <[email protected]> writes: > I know I'm like a broken record, but testing is especially > important for any multi-byte changes, even as a way > to document what we don't support.
Demanding more testing isn't a bad thing. :) > In this case (pardon the pun) the tests could be expanded > to cover a sampling of cases from > https://unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/SpecialCasing.txt Ah, I did not know about that document. That is helpful, thanks. > It's worth looking at the old discussion re join > (where it was mentioned that join/sort/uniq should be treated as a unit > so that there is consistent interaction between them): > https://crashcourse.housegordon.org/coreutils-multibyte-support.html > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2009-03/msg00102.html > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/coreutils/2010-09/msg00029.html My thinking was that it is easier to follow changes when they only affect one program. If we find that part of uniq, for example, can be used again in join, then we can move it to a module in gl/ once that program is addressed. That seems easier to review than a single massive patch, IMO. Collin
