[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Inconsistencies regarding nil coding-system

From: Kenichi Handa
Subject: Re: Inconsistencies regarding nil coding-system
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:03:46 +0900

In article <address@hidden>, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

> Right.  But I don't see this as being relevant to the issue at hand:
> coding-system-for-read is explicitly advertised to treat the nil value
> specially.  IOW, with coding-system-for-read, nil is _not_ a coding
> system, it's a flag with a well documented meaning.

> In the context of this discussion, nil is relevant for variables and
> arguments that must have a valid coding-system as their value.  (We
> treat nil as "valid" coding-system only for practical purposes.)
> Variables like coding-system-for-read, coding-system-for-write,
> last-next-selection-coding-system, etc. are not in this group.

> And in any case, nil does _not_ mean no-conversion for these
> variables, either.


> So, to summarize, how about if we change the interpretation of nil in
> this context to `undecided', on the trunk only?  If there are problems
> with that, we will have ample time to fix them, I think.

Ok, I agree.

Kenichi Handa

reply via email to

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