|
From: | Paul Eggert |
Subject: | Re: i18n backlog |
Date: | Sat, 9 Sep 2023 12:09:24 -0700 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.0 |
On 2023-09-09 07:58, Bruno Haible wrote:
Currently the mbscasecmp tests test only valid input. Someone should extend the unit test to cover strings with invalid input bytes. Then we could see what difference exactly it makes.
If I recall our earlier discussion correctly, when given invalid input mbscasecmp's two implementations should agree in unibyte and UTF-8 locales, but they can disagree in some other multi-byte encodings. As long as the implementations are self-consistent (mbscasecmp is a consistent total order, for example) I doubt whether this minor discrepancy will matter much. That being said, it wouldn't hurt to document some possible variances in areas where the behavior currently isn't documented. When doing that, it might also make sense to allow implementations other than mcel and mbiter, as SEE and MEE are not the only choices.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |