From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: quimby.gnus.org!not-for-mail From: "Eli Zaretskii" 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 22:44:00 +0200 Message-ID: <4098-Tue26Feb2002224400+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> References: <200202262013.g1QKDo516704@aztec.santafe.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: quimby2.netfonds.no X-Trace: quimby2.netfonds.no 1014756727 25763 195.204.10.66 (26 Feb 2002 20:52:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby2.netfonds.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Feb 2002 20:52:07 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 16foZy-0006hR-00 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:52:07 +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 16foWR-0001mO-00; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:48:27 -0500 Original-Received: from frigg.inter.net.il ([192.114.186.16]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16foUb-0001hF-00; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:46:33 -0500 Original-Received: from zaretsky (diup-218-138.inter.net.il [213.8.218.138]) by frigg.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id BGB80894; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:46:25 +0200 (IST) Original-To: rms@gnu.org X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 In-reply-to: <200202262013.g1QKDo516704@aztec.santafe.edu> (message from Richard Stallman on Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:13:50 -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:1563 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:1563 > Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:13:50 -0700 (MST) > From: Richard Stallman > > 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? In principle, the two should go together, but in practice, the EOL issue is much more simple and has less complications. So risky decisions run lower risk with EOLs. _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel