Re: set-char-table-range with charset arguments

[Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org>]

In article <200312110213.hBB2DsO28953@raven.dms.auburn.edu>, Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu> writes:
> There are several mistakes and omissions in `(elisp)Char-Tables',
> which I am trying to correct.  However, there are things I quite
> simply do not understand and which do not seem to be documented
> anywhere.  For instance, in the ielm run below, ascii seems to get
> treated as completely _synonymous_ with 128.  Setting the entire ascii
> range seems to affect 128 and no other character.  Similar things
> happen with eight-bit-graphic (synonymous with 256) and
> eight-bit-control.

> The ielm run below first shows the expected behavior for the character
> set ipa to show the contrast with the strange behavior for ascii.

> Is that behavior a bug or does it serve some purpose?  If the latter,
> where is that purpose documented?  (What is the value stored in 128
> used for and where is it explained what it is used for?)  Maybe
> set-char-table-range was never designed to work with the three
> character sets without generic characters, but in that case, should it
> not throw an error instead of doing cryptic stuff?

Thank you for noticing it.

Actually set-char-table-range is designed to work also with
those charsets.  Not working for them is simply a bug.  I'll
install a fix as soon as CVS server starts to access
commiting.

And, I've just noticed that the docstring says that RANGE
may be a coding system, but the code doesn't handle it.  The
only meaningful interpretation of RANGE being a coding
system is to treat all characters supported by the coding
system as target.  But, I think we don't have to support
such a facility.  So, I suggest to delete that part from the
docstring.

---
Ken'ichi HANDA
handa@m17n.org