[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: quotearg improvements [was: filenames in error messages]

From: Bruno Haible
Subject: Re: quotearg improvements [was: filenames in error messages]
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:13:43 +0100
User-agent: KMail/1.5.4

Eric Blake wrote:
> Consider the original filename of `dir??/file'.  Before my patch, the
> c_quoting_style converted it to `"dir?\?/file"', since `??/' is a trigraph
> for `\', but that is not a valid C string.  Right now, the output is
> `"dir?""?/file"', i.e. two concatenated C strings, so that a C parser
> would unambiguously recognize the quoted output, even if it is parsing
> trigraphs.

Sorry, but you lost me here. Where did the C trigraphs come into play?

You started by pointing out an ambiguity in error message output. The
desire was to define a variant syntax that would be
  1. possible to parse unambiguously,
  2. still understandable to a human user.

And now you are talking about C trigraphs, this invention whose only
purpose is to write C in a character set that lacks brackets, braces,
backslash and similar characters? And that are not understood by 99.9%
of the human users?

> For C strings, the code already outputs \a, \b, \f, \n, \r, \t, \v, \\,
> \"; and for all other non-printable characters, a 3-digit \nnn octal

So you want to escape, in an UTF-8 locale, all non-ASCII characters or bytes?
So that a Japanese user, for an error in file をつけた時でも, gets to read

This is far, far away from the original goal, and also neglects the principle
of minimal surprise. I mean, if the goal is to solve ambiguities, then please
add enough escapes to solve ambiguities, but not more than that!


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]