Re: support for non-ASCII in strings, was: signatures vs sf-date

On 02.12.2022 12:32, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> --------
> Julian Reschke writes:
>
>> Well, it was not me who added the new encoding to the Problem field spec.
>
> See other email.
>
>>> I cannot see any way we "need to support strings [...]" on top of that,
>>> and I am a big beliver in Gettys rules of design:
>>>
>>>  1. Do not add new functionality unless an implementor cannot
>>>     complete a real application without it.
>>
>> So why are we adding sf-date then? Why do we actually work on a revision
>> at all?
>
> Because sf-date can be a significant performance improvement.

Over an integer? Please elaborate. I see one additional case to
consider, and another character to skip.

> ...

Best regards, Julian

Received on Friday, 2 December 2022 11:36:23 UTC