Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] utf8: add function to detect a missing UTF-16/32 BOM

Lars Schneider writes: > "false". Therefore, "is_missing_required_utf_bom()" might be > lengthy but should fit. Thanks, sounds understandable a lot better than the original ;-)

Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] utf8: add function to detect a missing UTF-16/32 BOM

> On 30 Jan 2018, at 20:15, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > tbo...@web.de writes: > >> From: Lars Schneider >> >> If the endianness is not defined in the encoding name, then let's >> be strict and require a BOM to avoid any encoding confusion. The >>

Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] utf8: add function to detect a missing UTF-16/32 BOM

tbo...@web.de writes: > From: Lars Schneider > > If the endianness is not defined in the encoding name, then let's > be strict and require a BOM to avoid any encoding confusion. The > has_missing_utf_bom() function returns true if a required BOM is > missing. > > The

[PATCH v5 4/7] utf8: add function to detect a missing UTF-16/32 BOM

From: Lars Schneider If the endianness is not defined in the encoding name, then let's be strict and require a BOM to avoid any encoding confusion. The has_missing_utf_bom() function returns true if a required BOM is missing. The Unicode standard instructs to assume