[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#60750: 29.0.60; encode-coding-char fails for utf-8-auto coding syste
From: |
Robert Pluim |
Subject: |
bug#60750: 29.0.60; encode-coding-char fails for utf-8-auto coding system |
Date: |
Thu, 12 Jan 2023 15:28:49 +0100 |
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 16:04:07 +0200, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> said:
>> From: Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com>
>> Cc: 60750@debbugs.gnu.org
>> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 14:44:29 +0100
>>
>> One minor nit, the description for ':endian' says:
>>
>> `:endian'
>>
>> VALUE must be `big' or `little' specifying big-endian and
>> little-endian respectively. The default value is `big'.
>>
>> This attribute is meaningful only when `:coding-type' is `utf-16'.
>>
>> That last sentence seems untrue, as ':endian' is meaningful for
>> 'utf-8-auto'
Eli> That depends on what you mean by "meaningful". What it wants to say
Eli> is that it's meaningless to change the value of this property for any
Eli> coding-system other than UTF-16.
OK
Eli> Who does set utf-8-auto? where did you originally bump into this?
Eli> This is an obscure coding-system, and the fix to make it work as
Eli> documented will produce an incompatible change in behavior. So before
Eli> I decide whether to make the change and on what branch, I'd like to
Eli> know how in the world did you encounter this.
>>
>> Itʼs entirely my own fault:
>>
>> The file where I noticed this is shared between a GNU/Linux and a
>> macOS machine, which means I foolishly added the following a year ago,
>> even though itʼs unnecessary (perhaps I was thinking I was going to be
>> sharing it with a Windows machine?):
>>
>> ;; -*- lexical-binding: t; coding: utf-8-auto; -*-
Eli> So you thought the "-auto" part was about the EOL format?
yes. Iʼm having a reading incomprehension day, obviously (just like a
year ago when I made the change originally).
>> I think that means we can leave the code as it is.
Eli> ??? "As it is" means this coding-system behaves contrary to
Eli> documentation: it should produce BOM on encoding. Leaving it as is
Eli> doesn't sound TRT, so I'd like to have this fixed. From your
Eli> description, it sounds like you bumped into this by mistake, and I see
Eli> only one other use of it -- in the test suite. So I'm inclined to
Eli> installing this on the emacs-29 release branch.
Oh, I thought you were proposing *not* to fix it at all, since itʼs
such an obscure coding system. I have no opinion on where a fix should
go: Iʼm not going to be using that coding system again.
Robert
--