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@lists.iem.at wrote:

From: IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoelnig@iem.at mailto:zmoelnig@iem.at> Subject: Re: [PD] un-routable output from [text get] Date: February 7, 2017 at 1:40:40 AM MST To: pd-list@lists.iem.at mailto:pd-list@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/