From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: quimby.gnus.org!not-for-mail From: Kenichi Handa Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [simon.marshall@misys.com: FW: [21.1.90]: should coding be recalculated on revert-buffer?] Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:01:35 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <200202250701.QAA01581@etlken.m17n.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: quimby2.netfonds.no X-Trace: quimby2.netfonds.no 1014620764 27438 195.204.10.66 (25 Feb 2002 07:06:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby2.netfonds.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Feb 2002 07:06:04 GMT Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby2.netfonds.no with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16fFD2-00078S-00 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 08:06:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16fFAH-0004n9-00; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 02:03:13 -0500 Original-Received: from tsukuba.m17n.org ([192.47.44.130]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16fF8n-0004l2-00; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 02:01:41 -0500 Original-Received: from fs.m17n.org (fs.m17n.org [192.47.44.2]) by tsukuba.m17n.org (8.11.6/3.7W-20010518204228) with ESMTP id g1P71Zw10306; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:01:35 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from handa@m17n.org) Original-Received: from etlken.m17n.org (etlken.m17n.org [192.47.44.125]) by fs.m17n.org (8.11.3/3.7W-20010823150639) with ESMTP id g1P71ZM04150; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:01:35 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: (from handa@localhost) by etlken.m17n.org (8.8.8+Sun/3.7W-2001040620) id QAA01581; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:01:35 +0900 (JST) Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-reply-to: message from Richard Stallman on Sat, 23 Feb 2002 13:19:58 -0700 (MST) Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: quimby.gnus.org gmane.emacs.devel:1506 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:1506 Richard Stallman writes: > I tend to think he is right. What do you think? [...] > From: "Marshall, Simon" > To: "'Emacs Pretest Bug'" > Subject: FW: [21.1.90]: should coding be recalculated on revert-buffer? > Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:09:45 -0000 [...] > If I visit a DOS-format file in Emacs on a Unix box, Emacs helpfully > tells me the coding system is DOS in the modeline. If I use dos2unix > in a shell to convert it and M-x revert-buffer in Emacs, Emacs still > tells me the coding system is DOS. > Shouldn't it revert the coding system as appropriate too? In the above specific case, I agree he is right. But, if one visited a file with C-x RET c CODING RET C-x C-f FILENAME RET, it usually means that the file encoding is different from what Emacs automatically detects. Thus, in such a case, we had better read the file with the same coding system (i.e. CODING). And, it's difficult to distinguish the above two cases. --- Ken'ichi HANDA handa@etl.go.jp _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel