This could do with a comment about how the innocent looking "u8" there
is critical to the "<=" doing the right thing on machines with signed
chars...
Done. Patch as applied is attached.
zw
#
# old_revision [d51ee38d33e87702c503331f5366f9341f2457a4]
#
# patch "constants.cc"
# from [942d3eeba
On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 01:49:14PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On 7/14/06, Nathaniel Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> +// ??? Ensure use of UTF8 encoding internally, validate encoding here.
> >
> >^^ Hmm?
>
> I have gotten lost in the conversions and the wrappers, and cannot
> tell what enc
On 7/14/06, Nathaniel Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +// ??? Ensure use of UTF8 encoding internally, validate encoding here.
^^ Hmm?
I have gotten lost in the conversions and the wrappers, and cannot
tell what encoding (if any) can be relied upon at this point in the
code. The exclusion o
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 01:17:39PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Currently the knowledge of which characters are not allowed in a
> pathname is split between paths.cc and constants.cc.
> paths.cc:has_bad_chars is the sole user of
> constants.cc:illegal_path_bytes, but adds more to the set (notably
Currently the knowledge of which characters are not allowed in a
pathname is split between paths.cc and constants.cc.
paths.cc:has_bad_chars is the sole user of
constants.cc:illegal_path_bytes, but adds more to the set (notably
backslash). I note also that this code is all marked as "must be
supe
