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#9653: 24.0.50; `ucs-names' - Why all of the ("" . XXX) entries? Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 22:55:43 +0200 Message-ID: <83r52sqxww.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83sjn8r553.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1317761986 4404 80.91.229.12 (4 Oct 2011 20:59:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 20:59:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 9653@debbugs.gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 04 22:59:41 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBC5T-0002re-9i for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 22:59:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60891 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBC5S-00062w-Se for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:59:38 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:53899) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBC5O-0005pV-Fg for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:59:35 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBC5M-0006IG-Kh for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:59:34 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:32853) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBC5M-0006I9-Ip for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:59:32 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBC6o-000482-L4 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:01:02 -0400 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: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:01:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9653 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 9653-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9653.131776203515830 (code B ref 9653); Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:01:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 9653) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Oct 2011 21:00:35 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBC6N-00047F-4a for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:00:35 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBC6K-000474-1r for 9653@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:00:33 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LSK005006ZRLY00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for 9653@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 22:55:42 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.91.138]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LSK005KH7GTJI30@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 22:55:42 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:01:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) 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:52182 Archived-At: > From: "Drew Adams" > Cc: , <9653@debbugs.gnu.org> > Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 11:30:22 -0700 > > > Any questions? > > Yes, why are you explaining this? The question is not whether "this is > expected" based on the current implementation. The question is whether that > implementation does what we want. You seem to be answering the "Why?" of the > Subject line with "how". > > No one gave any indication that how this happens is a mystery. The question > posed by this bug thread is whether and why we want to have such unnamed > characters in `ucs-names'. That's all. How those names happen to be there has > never been in question. > > Almost half of the *many* names in `ucs-names' are non-names (empty) - that's > 49,368 empty names. Is that really what we want? That's the question being > discussed. All those questions were already answered half the thread away. You are wasting everybody's time and bandwidth by adding more pointless remarks to what is a done deal. Just sit tight and wait for Handa-san to do what Stefan asked him to. Case closed.