Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 12:04:29 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Policy on printf format specifiers? Message-ID: <199509191904.MAA10411@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199509191331.IAA28290@bonkers.taronga.com> from "Peter da Silva" at Sep 19, 95 08:31:59 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> In article <199509182019.NAA08435@phaeton.artisoft.com>, > Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> wrote: > >If your storage encoding, like Plan9, is UTF-8, then the answer is you > >can allow them no more than 51 characters for file names, unless you > >provide a prohibitively expensive (in terms of interactive response > >time) "check" callback for character entry. > > Why would it be prohibitively expensive? UTF is a simple scheme. I'm sure > I could implement a version of UTF file name checking for an entry dialog > that was fast enough nobody would notice it in TK, even on a 386, and TCL > is no number cruncher. Because you have to redo the string before you redraw or allow the character entry in the "fixed length field" and interactive response will suffer because of that. I suppose you could rewrite all the widgets to better hook the callbacks if you were inclined to do that. Bletch. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509191904.MAA10411>