This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Fix strptime era handling, add more era tests [BZ #24394]
- From: Carlos O'Donell <codonell at redhat dot com>
- To: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>, Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak at lingonborough dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, tamuki at linet dot gr dot jp
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 15:32:35 -0400
- Subject: Re: Fix strptime era handling, add more era tests [BZ #24394]
- References: <xnlg0yq08t.fsf@greed.delorie.com>
On 3/28/19 3:15 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak@lingonborough.com> writes:
I think we have already written UTF-8 codes explicitly in some other
tests so I think it would be OK here as well. However, I'd like to
see the actual glyphs written in the comment to explain what these
binary codes should mean. I think it is nice for a potential reviewer
who is able to read this particular script.
I don't mind having UTF-8 in comments, but... it always works in gcc,
right?
It will.
And that leads to the question "what about tests for non-utf8 locales" ?
Do we put the UTF-8 glyphs in the comments, or just omit them?
Put them in.
Put the UTF-8 glyphs in the comments. Don't put the non-UTF-8 glyphs in
the comments, because that would require opening the file and having your
terminal in that non-UTF-8 locale setting which is odd.
Granted we have some mixed-encoding input format files which are almost
impossible to edit with an editor (you have to use sed) because it's
not possible to switch between encodings on the fly.
--
Cheers,
Carlos.