On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Carlos Torres wrote:
> Hi Britton,
>
> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Britton Kerin
> wrote:
>>
>> What I'm really looking to do is replace scrollback in gnome-terminal
>
> there might be a scrollback patch on the suckless st site,
Ah there is one there, thx.
On Wed, 01 Jun 2016, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> So the question is whether libutf is meant to deal only with UTF-8
> (which is constant), or other Unicode features too (which are
> dynamic).
My point is, whenever possible, make the library user's life better.
Frozen implementation? It'd be nice
On 1 June 2016 at 18:43, Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
> The 95% use case here is handling UTF8-encoded Unicode text. Secure by
> default should be the norm, not a magic flag, not buried in a readme.
Obviously nobody is arguing for magic flags or burying things in a readme.
> If you need to encode an
> On Jun 1, 2016, at 10:43 AM, Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016, Ben Woolley wrote:
>> That is the reason why I am erring on the side of 5% this time.
>
> The 95% use case here is handling UTF8-encoded Unicode text. Secure by
> default should be the norm, not a magic flag, no
On Wed, 01 Jun 2016, Ben Woolley wrote:
> That is the reason why I am erring on the side of 5% this time.
The 95% use case here is handling UTF8-encoded Unicode text. Secure by
default should be the norm, not a magic flag, not buried in a readme.
If you need to encode an arbitrarily large intege
> On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:12 AM, Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2016, Ben Woolley wrote:
>> I see two things to do:
>> 1. There could be a new name for the transformation that stands apart
>> from UTF-8, which has now been changed from that original meaning.
>> [...]
>>
>> Maybe ca
On Wed, 01 Jun 2016, Ben Woolley wrote:
> I see two things to do:
> 1. There could be a new name for the transformation that stands apart
> from UTF-8, which has now been changed from that original meaning.
> [...]
>
> Maybe call the transform CTF-8, where C is character. Then UTF-8 is
> just a wr
>> On Jun 1, 2016, at 1:51 AM, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 1 June 2016 at 07:42, Ben Woolley wrote:
>> I am pretty sure you are aware of this already, but the UTF-8 RFC
>> defines Unicode quirks as part of the UTF-8 definition. Even the title
>> is "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 1
On 1 June 2016 at 07:42, Ben Woolley wrote:
> I am pretty sure you are aware of this already, but the UTF-8 RFC
> defines Unicode quirks as part of the UTF-8 definition. Even the title
> is "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646". It does not call it a
> general purpose transformation format
