Re: [dev] Different versions of suckless libutf

From: Kamil Cholewiński <>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 19:43:17 +0200

On Wed, 01 Jun 2016, Ben Woolley <> wrote:
> That is the reason why I am erring on the side of 5% this time.

The 95% use case here is handling UTF8-encoded Unicode text. Secure by
default should be the norm, not a magic flag, not buried in a readme.

If you need to encode an arbitrarily large integer into a stream of
bytes, then use a library specifically designed for encoding arbitrarily
large integers into streams of bytes.

Yes, we're making up problems.
Received on Wed Jun 01 2016 - 19:43:17 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Jun 01 2016 - 19:48:10 CEST