On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 6:05 PM Elijah Stone <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Mar 2022, Raul Miller wrote: > >> 2. That ability would not be removed. Functionality for interacting > >> with OS interfaces would, generally, interpret data received as being > >> utf8-encoded, and decode it. > > > > In other words, exactly what the current implementation is doing. > > Except, that's not what you proposed. > > > > You have instead proposed that for interacting with OS interfaces, the > > general case would be that literal (8 bit character) data is treated as > > ascii+latin1 with utf-8 as a special case exception. > > That's not true. That's backwards. > > The current implementation does no automatic encoding or decoding.
Be careful here -- "implementation" and "automatic" are most likely synonyms unless we make very careful distinctions. But, also, "encoding" and "encoded" need not refer to the same concept here. > It might be helpful to consider that, under my proposal, the distinction > between 1-, 2-, and 4-byte characters is purely an implementation detail > and an optimization, like using one byte per boolean. If the > implementation used solely 4-byte characters, the observable behaviour > would not change. That's also a description of the current system. So the thing I look for in your proposal is: what would have changed? > I am also not sure why you are talking about OS interfaces, but also say > you are ignoring fread and fwrite. I did not say anything about any other > OS interfaces. Consider bin/jconsole -- all input and output to and from bin/jconsole goes through the operating system. Or, consider the 15!:n family of foreigns. > It seems to me that this thread is not going anywhere constructive, so I > will probably desist from it now. Ok. -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
