Re: Patch for unicode in varnames...

[Peter & Kelly Passchier]

On 06/06/2560 14:37, George wrote:
> Broadly speaking I think the approach taken in Eduardo's patch
> (interpreting the byte sequence according to the rules of its character
> encoding) is better than the approach taken in current versions of Bash
> (letting 0x80-0xFF slide through the parser) - but that approach only
> works if you know the correct character encoding to use when processing
> the script. The information has to be provided in the script somehow.

I think only supporting UTF-8 would be the easiest, it allows all glyphs
to be used. And no extra declaration needs to be added to bash.

Peter