[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le

From: Stephen J. Turnbull
Subject: Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:44:29 +0900

Eli Zaretskii writes:

 > > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>
 > > Cc: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>,
 > >     address@hidden
 > > Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:23:37 +0900
 > > 
 > > I also find it faintly unclean when the system has to go around
 > > parsing symbol names to do things like change the EOL convention
 > > preferred for a buffer.
 > We don't parse the symbol name at all, AFAIR; instead, the properties
 > of each symbol are defined in advance by define-coding-system.

OK, so you've got properties which must be defined in correspondence
with the coding system names.  No parsing needed, but this would
bother me, defining NxMxP symbols when I could define N+M+P symbols.

I guess that doesn't bother you, so I'll just leave it at that.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]