From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#1183: 23.0.60; ediff-buffers is broken Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:35:46 -0700 Message-ID: <004901c93087$2c0345e0$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> References: <00a101c92fbf$998d19b0$c2b22382@us.oracle.com> <00eb01c92fd0$1be49cc0$c2b22382@us.oracle.com> <002501c93078$21bf8c60$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> <20081017130533.3c3070bc@kiferserv> <002a01c9307c$3af9fef0$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> Reply-To: Drew Adams , 1183@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1224269434 30593 80.91.229.12 (17 Oct 2008 18:50:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:50:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 1183@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com, bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, kifer@cs.stonybrook.edu, kifer@cs.sunysb.edu To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 17 20:51:32 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KquPz-0001Vu-4r for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:51:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59573 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KquOu-00017w-7m for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:50:16 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KquOm-00015Y-0u for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:50:08 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KquOk-000153-IO for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:50:07 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59338 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KquOk-000150-CM for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:50:06 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu ([138.23.92.77]:45062) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KquOj-0008EP-Tp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:50:06 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu (rzlab.ucr.edu [127.0.0.1]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id m9HIo0YN024796; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:50:03 -0700 Original-Received: (from debbugs@localhost) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id m9HIj9Xd024217; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:45:09 -0700 X-Loop: don@donarmstrong.com Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Resent-To: bug-submit-list@donarmstrong.com Resent-CC: Emacs Bugs Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:45:09 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: don@donarmstrong.com X-Emacs-PR-Message: report 1183 X-Emacs-PR-Package: emacs X-Emacs-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 1183-submit@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com id=B1183.122426856722391 (code B ref 1183); Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:45:09 +0000 Original-Received: (at 1183) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 17 Oct 2008 18:36:07 +0000 Original-Received: from rgminet01.oracle.com (rgminet01.oracle.com [148.87.113.118]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id m9HIa3tb022375 for <1183@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com>; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:36:04 -0700 Original-Received: from rgmgw1.us.oracle.com (rgmgw1.us.oracle.com [138.1.186.110]) by rgminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.6) with ESMTP id m9HIZj6u011787; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:35:45 -0600 Original-Received: from acsmt706.oracle.com (acsmt706.oracle.com [141.146.40.84]) by rgmgw1.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.2.4) with ESMTP id m9HIZhpP027123; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:35:44 -0600 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/141.144.60.60) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:35:43 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AckwhLnuBUe52FJwS++6w6/8V03YXwAAPi/Q X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:50:07 -0400 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:21629 Archived-At: > > > > > > But first, we should decide whether we want such > > > > > > buffers to compare equal or not. > > > > > > > > > > I believe we do, because it's called ediff-buffers. There's > > > > > ediff-files for when you want to compare the files. > > > > > > > > That's terrible. Ediff-buffers has always been usable > > > > directly for buffers visiting files also. > > > > > > I didn't see the original post, but the general idea was that > > > whenever things look the same in Emacs they should be treated > > > as equal (or equal module spaces). I do not think the user > > > should be bothered with encodings. Copying from buffer > > > to buffer should also be transparent. (And ediff-files and > > > ediff-buffers should produce the same results.) > > > > > > Unfortunately, I have not been following the developments in > > > the last few years, and my knowledge of the mechanics > became rusty. > > > > Everything Michael said sounds right to me. > > Then why did you say "that's terrible" in response to Stefan who > expressed the same view as Michael? They both say that what is > _displayed_ the same in Emacs should compare equal in ediff-buffers. I guess I misunderstood. I thought that Stefan was saying that ediff-buffers should continue to do what it is doing now: just show one big difference, with no distinction of textual differences, and force users to use ediff-files to see the textual differences. If he meant the same thing as Michael, then we agree. The two buffers I reported on should *not* compare equal, but neither should ediff-buffers just throw up its hands and say only "they're different somehow". I mistakenly thought that Stefan was saying that ediff-buffers should not distinguish their textual differences but should just report that they are different (one big diff). IOW, I thought he was saying that the current behavior is correct for ediff-buffers but that ediff-files should, as always, show the textual differences. > OTOH, "M-x ediff" that compares _files_ will still show differences > for identical text encoded differently in each of the files. Again, I have no problem with ediff commands also showing or otherwise identifying encoding differences. What I objected to was that textual differences were being effectively lost, because ediff-buffers just displays one big diff with identical, full-buffer highlighting - it doesn't show the textual differences at all. Sorry for any misunderstanding. It sounds now like we're all in more or less agreement.