From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: Re: mule: why not show the damage of choosing "raw-text" etc. now? Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:19:08 +0300 Organization: NetVision Israel Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1019629288 8929 127.0.0.1 (24 Apr 2002 06:21:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 06:21:28 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 170G9f-0002Ju-00 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:21:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 170G9f-0000WT-00; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 02:21:27 -0400 Original-Received: from chx400.switch.ch ([130.59.10.2]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 170G8o-0000Qd-00 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 02:20:34 -0400 Original-Received: from news.netvision.net.il ([194.90.1.15] helo=news.) by chx400.switch.ch with smtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 170G8m-0005tL-00 for gnu-emacs-bug@moderators.isc.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:20:32 +0200 Original-Received: by news. (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA11101; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:20:28 +0300 Original-To: gnu-emacs-bug@moderators.isc.org Original-Path: is!eliz Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.bug Original-Lines: 29 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: is.elta.co.il Original-X-Trace: news.netvision.net.il 1019629228 11099 199.203.121.2 (24 Apr 2002 06:20:28 GMT) Original-X-Complaints-To: abuse@netvision.net.il Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Apr 2002 06:20:28 GMT X-Sender: eliz@is In-Reply-To: Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:905 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.bugs:905 On 24 Apr 2002, Dan Jacobson wrote: > I do a certain M-x compile command that produces output that looks > like normal big5 chinese... at least the first page of which that I > see in the split window. > > I attempt to write this to disk with C-x C-w some_filename. > > Due to some non-big5 character somewhere deep in the output, I encounter > > These default coding systems were tried: > chinese-big5-unix > However, none of them safely encodes the target text. Does it help to say "C-x RET c big5 RET M-x compile RET" instead? > My point is, _why allow the file to keep on looking good this > session?_ If you are going to turn it into a "unrecoverable bunch of > <98>'s", why not do it now in front of the user's face instead of > having him think that the file is A-OK, and can be e-mailed to > friends, or is ready to go for the big presentation tomorrow? Because the Mule design is that Emacs never considers how it will encode the file until such time as you actually ask it to do so. One problem with what you suggest is that yanking some text that cannot be encoded in the buffer's coding system will trigger annoying questions or even display gibberish, even though all you want is remove some of the text you've yanked, or maybe save the buffer with a different encoding.