Subject: bug#43598: replace-in-string: finishing touches

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 01:18:13 +0200

Lars Ingebrigtsen <[email-masked]> writes:

> That is, we could just say "the results are undefined if the strings
> contain raw bytes".  Well, rather, if both strings are raw bytes, or
> none of them are, then it's well-defined, but not otherwise.

Or...  OK, I've never actually looked at the strings this closely, I've
just used the various accessors which hide all the complexity.

So: "a\377ø" is a multibyte string with five bytes (the "raw byte" is in
the private plane).

"a\377a" is a unibyte string with three bytes.

So searching for "\377" (one-byte unibyte string) and (make-string 1
255) (two-byte multibyte string) should be well-defined in either
combination here?

"\377" is in both "a\377ø" and "a\377a".

(make-string 1 255) is in neither "a\377ø", nor "a\377a".

And:

(eq (elt (make-string 1 255) 0) (elt "\377" 0))
=> t

But, like, whatevs.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no