From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-01-07 23:34:27
Gavin Lambert wrote:
> The main problem though is that once you start allowing transcoding of any
> kind, it's a slippery slope to other conversions that can make lossy
> changes (such as applying different canonicalisation formats, or
> adding/removing layout codepoints such as RTL markers).
There's no such slippery slope, no canonicalization, no adding or removing
anything. You just WTF-8 encode whatever Windows gives you, and WTF-8 decode
the path before passing it to Windows.
> Also, if you read the WTF-8 spec, it notes that it is not legal to
> directly concatenate two WTF-8 strings (you either have to convert it back
> to UCS-16 first, or execute some special handling for the trailing
> characters of the first string), which immediately renders it a poor
> choice for a path storage format.
Do you have a specific example in which concatenation won't work for the use
outlined above? Because I can't think of any.