"display charset" vs. Unix locales

[Michael B Allen]

On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > This is because you must first initialize the locale with
> > > > setlocale(LC_CTYPE, ""). Then it will say ASCII.
> > > 
> > > See the patch. Glibc does *not* use the name "ASCII" for this character
> > > set -- this is known.  The side-effect is that changing the name of the
> > > character set results in different handling by Samba, which recognizes
> > > "ASCII" as a special name and processes it internally.
> 
> > If the locale specified in the environment is used and you set it with
> > setlocale(LC_CTYPE, "") it is conceivable that nl_langinfo will return
> > "ASCII". I still have a Redhat 5.2 system that does this.
> 
> Really?  I guess glibc has changed a bit over the years. :)  On my glibc
> 2.3-based systems, there are no locales that return "ASCII" as the
> canonical character set name.

Actually IIRC Redhat 5.2 doesn't technicaly use "glibc". It used
"libc-5.x". I didn't even use locale files (see NOTES in setlocate(3)). So
nl_langinfo probably doesn't return ASCII anymore but at one time it did.

> > I should have realized that your code depends on the locale samba is
> > running in which you are saying is the C locale?
> 
> Tested in several locales (ASCII, ISO8859-1, UTF8), for completeness.

Good. You have me worried there for a minute :-)

Mike

-- 
A  program should be written to model the concepts of the task it
performs rather than the physical world or a process because this
maximizes  the  potential  for it to be applied to tasks that are
conceptually  similar and, more important, to tasks that have not
yet been conceived.