[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Emacs Lisp's future
From: |
Stephen J. Turnbull |
Subject: |
Re: Emacs Lisp's future |
Date: |
Wed, 08 Oct 2014 03:32:21 +0900 |
David Kastrup writes:
> Just bombing out in some predetermined manner in some fixed location is
> not a substitute for properly planned behavior.
Nobody proposed that, so please stop arguing against it.
> Unless told differently, a tool like GUILE or Emacs, when used as a
> filter, should do exactly _those_ filtering operations you tell it.
Right. All Mark and I want is to default safely. Ie, if you invoke an
encoding named "utf-8", you get strictly conformant output.
When Emacs is being used as a filter, you just have to use the
'utf-8-with-rawbytes coding system, and when Emacs is being used for
what is presumably valid text, you use the 'utf-8 coding system. IOW,
it's use of the *-with-rawbytes coding systems that turns Emacs into a
filter.
I think that is way preferable to the alternative where 'utf-8 gives
rawbytes, and you have to use 'utf-8-strict to get validation.
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, (continued)
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Richard Stallman, 2014/10/07
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Richard Stallman, 2014/10/07
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/07
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Mark H Weaver, 2014/10/07
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Andreas Schwab, 2014/10/07
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/07
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future,
Stephen J. Turnbull <=
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/07
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Mark H Weaver, 2014/10/07
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/07
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Mark H Weaver, 2014/10/07
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/07
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/10/07
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Mark H Weaver, 2014/10/07
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/08
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Mark H Weaver, 2014/10/08
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/10/08