Re: code-pages.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> 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
> processing.

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
feature freeze.

> 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.