Re: [PATCH]s and questions [Encode] 1.30

On Tuesday, April 9, 2002, at 04:33 , Philip Newton wrote: > > This bit appears not to have been applied? > > Here it is again, together with another few tweaks to Encode::Unicode. Yikes. Too late for 1.31 but applied. Patch failed in two places but it was trivial to manually roll it back. T

Re: [PATCH]s and questions [Encode] 1.30

On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 15:24:57 +0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anton Tagunov) wrote: > 2) [PATCH], thanks to Philip Newton > > --- E:\anth\tmp\perl\b2\ext\Encode-1.30\lib\Encode\Supported.pod.orig Mon Apr 8 >14:06:12 2002 > +++ E:\anth\tmp\perl\b2\ext\Encode-1.30\lib\Encode\Supported.podMon A

[Encode] 1.31 released

On Tuesday, April 9, 2002, at 02:38 , Dan Kogai wrote: > Promised changes in 1.31 is right after my sig. I am grateful to release ver. 1.31 of Encode as promised, available http://www.dan.co.jp/~dankogai/Encode-1.31.tar.gz And CPAN. The diff against perl-current is just 707 lines, whic

Re: [Encode] 1.31 in a few hours

Hello, Dan! Anton> ($name = lc $name) =~ tr/- //d; DK> I'll think about it but the priority is low. 250% fine :-) Anton> jisx0208-raw vs jis0208-raw? DK> Wel, We don't have to be *that* pedantic, methinks. T'was to allow find_encoding('JIS X 0208-raw') if +($name

[Encode] 1.31 in a few hours

On Tuesday, April 9, 2002, at 02:04 , Anton Tagunov wrote: > Other items in my '[PATCH]s and questions [Encode] 1.30' mail were: > > - a consmetic patch to Supported.pod This one must be the most acceptable by pumpkins since it has no piece of code :) > - a question whether > > Encoder.pm >

Re: [Encode 1.30] BOM32LE was incorrect - fixed

Hello, Dan! >> --- ext/Encode-1.30/lib/Encode/Unicode.pm.orig Mon Apr 8 14:06:28 2002 >> +++ ext/Encode-1.30/lib/Encode/Unicode.pm Mon Apr 8 17:00:47 2002 DK> Thanks. Applied. Always welcome! :) -- Other items in my '[PATCH]s and questions [Encode] 1.30' mail were: - a consmeti

Re: [Encode 1.30] Patch to correct BOM value for 32LE

At 2002-04-08 23:22:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The following patch will correct incorrect value for BOM for 32LE. It doesn't apply cleanly, and when applied, causes t/Unicode.t to fail at test 14: $ ./TEST ../ext/Encode/t/Unicode.t t/../ext/Encode/t/UnicodeUTF-32:Where's the BOM?<>

[Encode 1.30] Patch to correct BOM value for 32LE

jhi, The following patch will correct incorrect value for BOM for 32LE. The first one is essentially identical to that of Anton. And the second will fix t/Unicode.t so it is more independent of Encode::Unicode (that is, should there be an error there t/Unicode.t will find it -- currently

[Encode 1.30] BOM32LE was incorrect - fixed

Anton, On Monday, April 8, 2002, at 10:05 , Anton Tagunov wrote: > --- ext/Encode-1.30/lib/Encode/Unicode.pm.orig Mon Apr 8 14:06:28 2002 > +++ ext/Encode-1.30/lib/Encode/Unicode.pm Mon Apr 8 17:00:47 2002 > @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ > sub FBCHAR(){ 0xFFFd } > sub BOM_BE(){ 0xFeFF } > sub BOM

one of the [PATCH]'s revised ( [Encode] 1.30 )

Hello, Dan! AT> 1) [PATCH] AT>Justification: http://www.unicode.org/unicode/faq/utf_bom.html#25 AT> --- ext/Encode-1.30/lib/Encode/Unicode.pm.orig Mon Apr 8 14:06:28 2002 AT> +++ ext/Encode-1.30/lib/Encode/Unicode.pm Mon Apr 8 14:49:24 2002 Patch has been revised again a bit: also fi

[PATCH]s and questions [Encode] 1.30

Hello, Dan! 1) [PATCH] Justification: http://www.unicode.org/unicode/faq/utf_bom.html#25 --- ext/Encode-1.30/lib/Encode/Unicode.pm.orig Mon Apr 8 14:06:28 2002 +++ ext/Encode-1.30/lib/Encode/Unicode.pm Mon Apr 8 14:49:24 2002 @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ sub FBCHAR(){ 0xFFFd } sub BOM_BE(){ 0