From: Bill Kelly <billk@...>
Date: 2010-03-28T16:51:26+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:29082] Re: [Bug #1685] Some windows unicode path issues remain

Hi,

U.Nakamura wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In message "[ruby-core:28979] [Bug #1685] Some windows unicode path issues remain"
>     on Mar.25,2010 19:10:35, <redmine@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
>> I wonder if there is a reason this should not be merged
>> into trunk ASAP?
>
> Because I'm too busy to test this branch well :(
>
> Endoh-san says that the feature freeze is March 31.
> Then, it is necessary to complete merging it until then,
> if we want to include it in 1.9.2 release...
>
> win32-unicode-branch has not contained the globbing features
> yet, as Vit pointed in [ruby-core:28977] (thank you, Vit).
> However, because it relates to the command line interpretation,
> it might be difficult to implement until March 31.

I understand how this might be considered a 'feature', but
I think it is also possible to consider it a bug fix.

1.9.1 was supposed to support unicode path on win32, but
this was deferred to 1.9.2.

Nevertheless, I quote matz from November, 2008:

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: [ruby-core:20109] Re: 1.9, encoding & win32 wide char support"
>     on Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:26:53 +0900, "Bill Kelly" <billk@cts.com> writes:
>
> |> Does anyone have information as to the current status of
> |> adding Unicode-savvy path handling to 1.9 ruby?
> |
> |Ugh.  Sorry, I mean of course: Unicode-savvy path handling
> |on *win32* ruby 1.9.
>
> Every path encoding is UTF-8 and converted to UTF-16 internally.  If
> there's something still use *A functions, it will eventually replaced
> by *W functions.  In short, if you're using UTF-8 for your program
> encoding, you should not see any problem  (if you do, it's a bug).
>
>                                                       matz.

I don't know if matz has changed his mind, but; personally I would
like to consider it a bug that ruby 1.9.x fails for unicode paths
on windows.

> Should we wait until all functions are covered, or merge the
> current one?
>
> Summary:
>   (1) need the decision whether merging it or not
>   (2) need testers :)
>   (3) need the worker(s) to make the patch to trunk

(1) Please, yes. Let us merge. 93.75% is better than current 6.25% coverage.
(2) I hope to contribute unicode_path unit-tests. (such as in bootstraptest/)
(3) I would like to contribute to the patch if my efforts can be useful.
    (diffs on io.c, file.c, and dir.c look pretty straightforward.)
    (diffs on win32/win32.c look more difficult, but I can attempt.)


Regards,

Bill