Re: En-dash versus em-dash

On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 23:23 +0700, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:08 PM, Philip Withnall
> <philip tecnocode co uk> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-12-10 at 10:10 -0500, Pat Suwalski wrote:
> >> On 12-12-10 09:57 AM, Philip Withnall wrote:
> >> > Disclaimer: I’m en_GB. I’m not entirely sure that en_GB speakers should
> >> > be deciding the style to use in the C locale, given that manuals of
> >> > style differ between the UK and the US.
> >>
> >> You must mean en_US. The C locale should not have unicode in it.
> >
> > No, I mean the C locale. i.e. The strings in the source code. Using
> > UTF-8 in them is fine as long as they only get passed to UTF-8 safe
> > functions. All GNOME libraries explicitly expect input strings to be in
> > UTF-8.
> It means GNOME libraries are utf-8 capable. It does not mean we should
> put utf-8 strings to the source code. Seriously, why not make these
> changes en_US locale only?

Are there any reasons against putting UTF-8 characters in the source
code (which weren’t covered in my blog post)?

Creating and maintaining an en_US locale which is identical to the C
locale apart from its use of UTF-8 would be a huge amount of effort for
no benefit (that I know of; please correct me if I’m wrong).


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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