> I don't see how this would make things better given the distribution of
> various encodings in the Factor code base.
You're making an argument based on the "distribution of various encodings",
but you don't present that data. Fortunately I can gather this easily.
Let's consider core and contributed libraries for this analysis:
{ utf8 binary utf16 latin1 ascii }
[ dup usage length 2array ]
map .
=>
{
{ utf8 46 }
{ binary 29 }
{ utf16 8 }
{ latin1 8 }
{ ascii 27 }
}
All the instances of 'utf8' would disappear. This is better.
OK, let's narrow the scope to just core:
{
{ utf8 34 }
{ binary 9 }
}
It's quite telling that the only encodings that exist in core are 'utf8'
and 'binary'.
Ed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Factor-talk mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
