From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: quimby.gnus.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [simon.marshall@misys.com: FW: [21.1.90]: should coding be recalculated on revert-buffer?] Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:13:50 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <200202262013.g1QKDo516704@aztec.santafe.edu> References: Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: quimby2.netfonds.no X-Trace: quimby2.netfonds.no 1014754799 23994 195.204.10.66 (26 Feb 2002 20:19:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby2.netfonds.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Feb 2002 20:19:59 GMT Cc: miles@gnu.org, handa@etl.go.jp, 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 16fo4s-0006Et-00 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:19:58 +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 16fo1R-0005uP-00; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:16:25 -0500 Original-Received: from pele.santafe.edu ([192.12.12.119]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16fnyy-0005VM-00; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:13:53 -0500 Original-Received: from aztec.santafe.edu (aztec [192.12.12.49]) by pele.santafe.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id g1QKDuu27054; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:13:56 -0700 (MST) Original-Received: (from rms@localhost) by aztec.santafe.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) id g1QKDo516704; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:13:50 -0700 (MST) X-Authentication-Warning: aztec.santafe.edu: rms set sender to rms@aztec using -f Original-To: eliz@is.elta.co.il In-reply-to: (message from Eli Zaretskii on Mon, 25 Feb 2002 11:56:02 +0200 (IST)) 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:1551 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:1551 It might be okay to do that inside revert-buffer, but even then I'd suggest to do it only for the EOL format, not for the base of the coding system, to keep the possible unintended consequences to a minimum. Why not do it for both aspects of the coding system, in revert? That seems right to me. _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel