From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Feature freeze on October 1 Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:06:37 +0200 Message-ID: <837griinsy.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87haqp1okn.fsf@gnu.org> <83zk4fiiw9.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1348556837 16224 80.91.229.3 (25 Sep 2012 07:07:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:07:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: cyd@gnu.org, monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: handa@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 25 09:07:21 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TGPEl-0004Xx-4O for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:07:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52208 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TGPEg-0002bG-5I for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 03:07:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36703) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TGPEd-0002bA-46 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 03:07:11 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TGPEb-0005hk-U9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 03:07:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:62876) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TGPEa-0005hG-6w; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 03:07:08 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MAW00E00826O200@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:06:42 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MAW00EVB936O160@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:06:42 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <83zk4fiiw9.fsf@gnu.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 80.179.55.166 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:153527 Archived-At: > Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 16:40:22 +0200 > From: Eli Zaretskii > Cc: cyd@gnu.org, monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > From: Kenichi Handa > > Cc: monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA, cyd@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:05:12 +0900 > > > > I have not yet figured out in detail the effect, but, what > > should be done, I think, is to remove the call of > > MAYBE_UNIFY_CHAR in char_string and string_char of > > character.c. > > Thanks. I'll have a stab at that soon. I did that in trunk revision 110192. Should we also remove MAYBE_UNIFY_CHAR and maybe_unify_char as well? And what about CHAR_STRING_ADVANCE_NO_UNIFY and STRING_CHAR_ADVANCE_NO_UNIFY? Should we remove them and use, respectively, CHAR_STRING_ADVANCE and STRING_CHAR_ADVANCE instead? Or do we want to leave all these in place for now, to keep the option of going back to using the unification in some cases?