> I am talking about what filenames are equal and what are not.
and I was saying that your definition, although technically
conventient, looks very ugly. The conceptual view users have is that
filenames are sequences of glyphs, not bytes. If you want to implement
that definition it is really usefull to have a unique representation
for each glyph.
> It's assumed that files and filenames shouldn't be re-encoded
> automatically.
If you are not reencoding then why take the trouble of passing charset
labels around? Secondly it is very very difficult to make sure things
do not get reencoded mostly because you cannot be sure what is a
filename and what is not.
Jan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu