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: Emacs Lisp's future Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 08:44:16 +0300 Message-ID: <83egud970v.fsf@gnu.org> References: <54193A70.9020901@member.fsf.org> <87wq8pwjen.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <837g0ptnlj.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3yxwdr6.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87tx3tmi3t.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <834mvttgsf.fsf@gnu.org> <87lhp5m99w.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87h9ztm5oa.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87d2ahm3nw.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <871tqneyvl.fsf@netris.org> <87d2a54t1m.fsf@yeeloong.lan> <83lhotme1e.fsf@gnu.org> <871tql17uw.fsf@yeeloong.lan> <838uktm9gw.fsf@gnu.org> <87h9zgarvp.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83y4srjaot.fsf@gnu.org> <83r3yhiu8c.fsf@gnu.org> <83r3yg9bpu.fsf@gnu.org> <83y4sn83ig.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1413092695 28782 80.91.229.3 (12 Oct 2014 05:44:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 05:44:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dak@gnu.org, mhw@netris.org, dmantipov@yandex.ru, emacs-devel@gnu.org, handa@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, stephen@xemacs.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 12 07:44:47 2014 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 1XdBxW-0006PC-CN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 07:44:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56179 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XdBxW-0003kk-1Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 01:44:46 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55160) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XdBxP-0003kf-4f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 01:44:43 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XdBxK-0001Qy-Ob for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 01:44:39 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:58249) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XdBxD-0001Q2-7M; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 01:44:27 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NDB00J00H1W0R00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 08:44:25 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NDB00IO2HA1JA90@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 08:44:25 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 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:175275 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:22:59 -0400 > From: Richard Stallman > CC: dak@gnu.org, mhw@netris.org, dmantipov@yandex.ru, > emacs-devel@gnu.org, handa@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, > stephen@xemacs.org > > > Originally, Emacs would complain that Latin-1 cannot be used, and > > asked the user to select a different encoding. > > > > That is about Latin-1. What did Emacs do, at that time, with UTF-8? > > The situation I described is with text encodable by UTF-8, but not by > Latin-1. So it has no analogue when UTF-8 is used to begin with. > > It looks like that past case isn't directly pertinent to this issue, > then. I think it _is_ pertinent, because it demonstrates how intolerable Emacs users are to prompts that appear where by their (users') standards Emacs should simply silently DTRT (for some definition of "Right"). > What will Emacs do, under this proposal, if the user is asked whether > to keep the original raw bytes and answers NO? > > Abort the operation, I suppose. Good luck selling this to our users. > Our experience with such prompts is that they are perceived as > annoyances, no matter whether they happen at read or at write time. > > Maybe so, but how big of an annoyance depends on how often it happens. Our experience is that it happens "too often". > Those who are arguing for doing something to avoid propagating raw > bytes might want to implement an optional feature for asking for > confirmation before saving UTF-8 with raw bytes. Then people could > try enabling that feature and we would see how often we get asked to > confirm. Fine by me.