[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Tue, 01 Jan 2002 20:50:14 +0200
> From: Dave Love <address@hidden>
> Date: 01 Jan 2002 18:05:39 +0000
> > Each cpNNN coding system defined by codepage.el has a plist which
> > spells the language environment and the Mule charset supported by
> > it. lisp/term/internal.el uses that plist to determine how to call
> > cp-make-coding-systems-for-codepage, and which language environment
> > to set up, given the value of dos-codepage.
> I don't understand why that can't be done the same way as locale
Because thde dos-codepage mechanism works backwards: you know the
system's native encoding _first_, and deduce all the rest (including
the language environment) from that.
> > As for the Unicode vs Mule charsets issue, I don't think I mind
> > that change,
> I wish there was a consistent story on this. That was rejected
> before, partly on the grounds it allegedly couldn't work, even.
I said many times that the only reason it was rejected is because it
was suggested too late into the pretest, long after Gerd called for a
> I don't see what it has to do with cpNNN specifically, particularly as
> I decode them in a unified form anyway.
If you produce Unicode characters, I think it is safer to work _only_
with Unicode characters. I'm afraid that mixing them with Mule
characters could lead to subtle bugs.
> > Those objections were in the context of the pretest which was
> > deemed to be near its end, and the additional code, which is now
> > installed, that was necessary to make the changes to codepages
> > safe.
> Perhaps, but something different was said
I never said anything different. I only explained why I thought
installing those changes so close to the end of the pretest was in my
opinion dangerous. Those reasons were only relevant to the pretest,
not in general.
> > Can you write this and post the diffs here?
> It already got advertised and discussed. I think Stefan posted diffs.
Sorry, I don't think I've seen them.