Re: code-pages.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Dave Love <address@hidden>
> Date: 19 Dec 2001 22:26:22 +0000
> 
> >>>>> Eli Zaretskii writes:
> 
>  > Shouldn't the code in code-pages.el be part of codepage.el?  Why
>  > should we have two files that deal with the same issues?
> 
> You shouldn't, but what codepage.el does isn't good enough, as other
> users have pointed out.

Then let's improve it instead of forking it.

> (codepage.el duplicates some work done by cyrillic.el, at least.)

Then I suggest to merge them.

> I don't understand why DOS can't do this job with such a general
> solution.

DOS (and Windows) can use the same general solutions that the other
platforms use.  I don't see any inherent reason to have a sepcial
solutions here.

> You said what I've done would break DOS, inter alia.

IIRC, you suggested to replace one of the codepages with a cyrillic
decoder that supported the same encoding, but that decoder didn't
have the property list required by internal.el to load the right
tables at startup.  If the replacement is fully compatible, I cannot
possibly have any objections, can I?  Adding a plist is hardly a good
reason for forking a package.

Could you please suggest changes to codepage.el which will merge in
the functionality of code-pages.el?