From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: libnettle/libhogweed WIP Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 18:46:55 +0300 Message-ID: <83o9vraxow.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83o9xjn06c.fsf@gnu.org> <87shmeb5ln.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> <83y3w5z1ez.fsf@gnu.org> <87lgr6yakj.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87wpamww9k.fsf@lifelogs.com> <8337daggnj.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1cdwxt6.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83tw5pg1q3.fsf@gnu.org> <87zifhulc2.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83h91og80k.fsf@gnu.org> <87pogbuhoe.fsf@lifelogs.com> <834lxndmd9.fsf@gnu.org> <87efwrug6z.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83bmrscvdb.fsf@gnu.org> <871ssos8jp.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83y3uwb995.fsf@gnu.org> <83wpafbyk6.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1492703263 580 195.159.176.226 (20 Apr 2017 15:47:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:47:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 20 17:47:38 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d1EIz-0008Rl-S6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 17:47:37 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54664 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d1EJ5-0006qR-KT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:47:43 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54118) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d1EHj-0006Ls-Nx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:46:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d1EHf-0001wc-M6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:46:19 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:37319) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d1EHf-0001wS-Jm; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:46:15 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3395 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1d1EHe-0008QB-Ve; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:46:15 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:36:11 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:214147 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:36:11 -0400 > > >> In my experience it's important for the coder to carefully choose which > >> coding-system should be used. So if we want the functions to do > >> encoding internally, then I'd prefer we have a non-optional > >> coding-system argument. "Automatically choose an appropriate > >> coding-system" encourages bugs. > > How is this different from write-region and its ilks? > > Off the top of my head: > - it's new, so we get to avoid past errors Not sure what past errors you had in mind. Any errors we made in the encoding/decoding department were fixed by Emacs 23, and the stuff is remarkably stable since then, with a single minor improvement in Emacs 24.4. From my POV, this one of the greatest success stories in Emacs. Paid for with sweat, blood, and tears, but success nonetheless. Why would we want to refrain from reusing it? > - it's not a command I don't see how this is relevant: write-region is mostly used non-interactively. > - it's not limited to interaction with files write-region was just an example; we use basically the same rules with process I/O.