Re: GNAT vs UTF-8 source file names

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Jacob Sparre Andersen" <jacob@jacob-sparre.dk> wrote in message 
news:87inj4xy8q.fsf@jacob-sparre.dk...
...
>> On the other hand, ARM 2.1(4/3) says "The coded representation for
>> characters is implementation defined", which seems to conflict with
>> (16) - but then, the AARM ramification (4.b/2) notes that the rule
>> doesn't have much force!
>
> That sounds like the classical wording.
>
> I suppose that the intent is that UTF-8 encoded ISO-10646 (in the right
> normalization form) _has_ to be supported, but that any other encoding
> is allowed in addition to that.

Precisely.

> It would of course be nice if that was also what the ARM actually said.

Mostly we're not changing text that doesn't have to be changed. In some 
cases, it would make more sense if it was changed, but since every change 
has a potential for errors and unintended consequences, its often best to 
leave stuff alone. (There are many cases where a "simple" change broke 
something else, leading to repeated fixes.)

                     Randy.