At 14:07 08/10/31, Michael Selig wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:42:55 +1100, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu / ruby-lang.org>  
>wrote:
>
>>> If you agree that this is a good idea, I don't mind trying to produce a
>>> patch for it myself. Please let me know.
>>
>> I don't agree, but feel free to post your patch, of course.
>
>There seems little point in making the effort to produce a patch if it is  
>going to rejected.
>
>I kinda like the idea mentioned at the end of my previous post, of  
>separating "BINARY" and "ASCII-8BIT" into different encodings

This has been discussed quite extensively, but rejected.
I'm not very good at explaining why, because I was leaning
towards having this separation. Probably the person best
qualified to explain it is Akira Tanaka.

>which  
>function identically except when it comes to combining with other  
>encodings.

While the separation was discussed (and rejected), the main
difference envisioned was that with ASCII-8BIT, the ASCII part
works as ASCII, but with BINARY, that wouldn't be the case.

So even if the separation would happen, I don't think your
proposal of using the two different encodings would be adopted.

Regards,    Martin.

>But before I do anything I would like some more discussion &  
>feedback (like what happenned with "default_internal"). Then I'd be happy  
>to put the work in to do a patch, assuming that there is a reasonable  
>likelyhood it will be accepted (at least in part).
>
>Cheers
>Mike
>


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst / it.aoyama.ac.jp