[PD] un-routable output from [text get]

[Dan Wilcox]

I feel like this should be mentioned in the help file for [text].

Otherwise, it’d be best if [text] simply swallowed the BOM if it’s detected. That of course then brings up the question whether Pd should replicate an existing BOM when writing? I dunno.

> On Feb 7, 2017, at 1:42 AM, pd-list-request at lists.iem.at wrote:
> 
> From: IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoelnig at iem.at <mailto:zmoelnig at iem.at>>
> Subject: Re: [PD] un-routable output from [text get]
> Date: February 7, 2017 at 1:40:40 AM MST
> To: pd-list at lists.iem.at <mailto:pd-list at lists.iem.at>
> 
> 
> On 2017-02-07 09:24, Liam Goodacre wrote:
>> This explanation makes sense, however I am using non ASCII characters in the textfile (not the one attached, but the one I'm working on), so I guess that I need the BOM to stay there. 
> 
> no.
> the BOM was just another useless invention.
> UTF-8 (unlike UTF-16) is a byte-stream oriented protocol. it is
> unconcerned by the notion of byte-order.
> 
> gfmasdr
> IOhannes

--------
Dan Wilcox
@danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika>
danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/>
robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20170207/a9d2318f/attachment-0001.html>