From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#12925: 24.1; string-make-unibyte instead of string-as-unibyte Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2021 18:26:33 +0300 Message-ID: <83v96xzjva.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87wqxi24b3.fsf@betacantrips.com> <87lf7udq4q.fsf@gnus.org> <83fsy123yg.fsf@gnu.org> <83zgw9znp2.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="29936"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 12925@debbugs.gnu.org, ethan.glasser.camp@gmail.com To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 01 17:33:06 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lo6O9-0007YG-Sd for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2021 17:33:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52344 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lo6O8-00042W-UD for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2021 11:33:04 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42928) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lo6II-0000lF-AS for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2021 11:27:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:54225) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lo6II-0002DS-1Q for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2021 11:27:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lo6IH-0002xL-Ti for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2021 11:27:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2021 15:27:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 12925 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 12925-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B12925.162256121511347 (code B ref 12925); Tue, 01 Jun 2021 15:27:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 12925) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Jun 2021 15:26:55 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37538 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lo6IA-0002ww-M0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2021 11:26:54 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:49222) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lo6I8-0002wh-TD for 12925@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2021 11:26:53 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:60434) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lo6I3-000239-4R; Tue, 01 Jun 2021 11:26:47 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:2916 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lo6I2-0006mC-Nw; Tue, 01 Jun 2021 11:26:47 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Monnier on Tue, 01 Jun 2021 10:25:17 -0400) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:207784 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: larsi@gnus.org, 12925@debbugs.gnu.org, ethan.glasser.camp@gmail.com > Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2021 10:25:17 -0400 > > > What I mean is: if we think the current behavior is broken, then what > > I suggest is at least less broken (and sometimes might just be TRT). > > I doubt it's less broken: sometimes it will be TRT, other times it will > be worse than what we have. > > > At the very least what I suggest is reversible, whereas neither the > > current behavior nor what you suggest is. > > My point is that we shouldn't even get into the position of having to > make such arbitrary choices: we should signal an error before we > get there. Well, then we still disagree.