From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#13505: Bug#696026: emacs24: file corruption on saving Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 05:48:14 +0200 Message-ID: <83a9s3p56p.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20121215223809.GA7549@xvii.vinc17.org> <877gn8ijgn.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <83obgjpzod.fsf@gnu.org> <20130120212508.GF2695@xvii.vinc17.org> <83bocjpm81.fsf@gnu.org> <20130120221007.GG2695@xvii.vinc17.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1358740150 16140 80.91.229.3 (21 Jan 2013 03:49:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 03:49:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 696026-forwarded@bugs.debian.org, 696026@bugs.debian.org, rlb@defaultvalue.org, 13505@debbugs.gnu.org To: Vincent Lefevre Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 21 04:49:28 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Tx8Nv-0007k3-RJ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 04:49:24 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49586 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tx8Ne-0002sB-Uz for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:49:06 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:39591) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tx8Nb-0002rs-BL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:49:04 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tx8Na-00062a-5p for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:49:03 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:36696) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tx8Na-00062Q-2F for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:49:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tx8OY-0005a7-Lt for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:50:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 03:50:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 13505 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 13505-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B13505.135874014721386 (code B ref 13505); Mon, 21 Jan 2013 03:50:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 13505) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Jan 2013 03:49:07 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42160 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tx8Nf-0005Yr-2U for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:49:07 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:38922) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tx8Nb-0005Yg-LV for 13505@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:49:05 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MGY00B00IETMV00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for 13505@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 05:48:00 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MGY00BU8IJZHO20@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 05:48:00 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <20130120221007.GG2695@xvii.vinc17.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:70124 Archived-At: > Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:10:08 +0100 > From: Vincent Lefevre > Cc: rlb@defaultvalue.org, handa@gnu.org, 13505@debbugs.gnu.org, > 696026-forwarded@bugs.debian.org, 696026@bugs.debian.org > > On 2013-01-20 23:40:14 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:25:08 +0100 > > > From: Vincent Lefevre > > > Cc: Rob Browning , Kenichi Handa , > > > 13505@debbugs.gnu.org, 696026-forwarded@bugs.debian.org, > > > 696026@bugs.debian.org > > > > > > On 2013-01-20 18:49:38 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > Personally, I don't think there's a bug here. It's a cockpit error. > > > > > > Perhaps it isn't a bug at save time. But then, selecting a lossy > > > encoding by default when visiting the file is the bug (and really > > > a regression), particularly if this isn't clearly told to the user. > > > > The encoding isn't lossy. > > You said: > > | The original encoded form of the characters as found on disk at > | visit time _cannot_ be recovered by saving with raw-text, because > | that encoded form is lost without a trace when the file is _visited_ > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > | and decoded into the internal representation. > > This is what lossy is. In that sense, every encoding except no-conversion is lossy. > On the opposite, the utf-8 encoding doesn't seem to be lossy: Emacs > seems to handle files with invalid UTF-8 sequences without any loss. > So, this encoding is safe, even if Emacs wrongly guess the encoding. No, it isn't, although you could get away with it most of the time. > But Emacs should clearly tell the user what to do after C-x C-s and > clearly say when there can be data loss. At save time, "data loss" is wrt what's in the buffer. In that sense, the encodings Emacs suggested don't lose any data. > Then Emacs says: "Select one of the safe coding systems listed below > [...]", but doesn't say that something has already been lost. So, the > words "safe coding systems" are really misleading. It's misleading because you misunderstand what is "safe" at buffer save time.