[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fri, 09 Feb 2001 11:16:25 +0200
> Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 17:16:59 +0900 (JST)
> From: Kenichi Handa <address@hidden>
> > Won't this have potentialy bad effects on eight-bit-*
> > character support, e.g. when searching for them in a
> > buffer?
> Do you have in your mind some concrete example?
No. I just thought about the possibility that some primitive might
convert unibyte characters such as \200 into multibyte eight-bit-*
characters (to provide the behavior users expect). If such cases do
exist, they might conflict with this change.
> I think all of these should produce the same lisp string:
> (concat "\200" "\343")
> (concat (char-to-string ?\200) (char-to-string ?\343))
> (concat '(?\200 ?\343))
> (string ?\200 ?\343)
> (mapconcat 'char-to-string '(?\200 ?\343) "")
> and should work the same way on inserting, searchihg, etc.
Yes, but I remember that some of the primitives silently convert
between unibyte and multibyte because users expect that. Isn't that