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: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:38:21 +0300 Message-ID: <83r3yg9bpu.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> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1412955547 12755 80.91.229.3 (10 Oct 2014 15:39:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 15:39:07 +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 Fri Oct 10 17:38:59 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 1XccHR-0002iy-IP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 17:38:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49084 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XccHR-0005Yn-3h for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 11:38:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57180) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XccHA-0005Yc-KQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 11:38:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XccH6-0007F2-74 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 11:38:40 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout29.012.net.il ([80.179.55.185]:40458) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XccH1-0007EO-2X; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 11:38:31 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout29.012.net.il by mtaout29.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0ND800G00IPFM900@mtaout29.012.net.il>; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:37:36 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout29.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0ND8008CJJEOUJ90@mtaout29.012.net.il>; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:37:36 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.185 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:175223 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:24:37 -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 > > > Asking about invalid UTF-8 in a file could be a nuisance, but how much > > of a nuisance depends on the details of what we do. Since this has > > some security implications, it is worth a small amount of nuisance. > > That wasn't what users felt, overwhelmingly. > > Felt when? When we tried to be more cautious about these issues than we are now. > About what behavior? There are several examples, and I'm not sure I recall all the details accurately. One such situation goes like this: Visit a file (or receive from another process text) that is encoded in Latin-1. Insert some text that cannot be encoded in Latin-1, and try saving the buffer (or sending it to a process). Originally, Emacs would complain that Latin-1 cannot be used, and asked the user to select a different encoding. Then users of UTF-8 locales complained that these prompts were annoyances, that they expect Emacs to use UTF-8 silently, without any questions, as long as UTF-8 can encode the result. So now that is what we do. > I asked > > > What exactly did we try before? > > and you responded > > AFAIR, we tried converting raw bytes into valid non-ASCII characters, > and perhaps also replacing them with the equivalent of u+FFFD, the > Unicode "replacement character". > > But those are both different from the proposal I'm discussing. How are they different? In any case, I hope you are not expecting to hear about user reactions to any of the proposals that haven't been tried yet. Such expectations are IMO unreasonable. What I (and I think also David) were trying to show is that _similar_ situations were met with user complaints and outcry, and that we are where we are today because we heeded to those complaints. I see no reason to believe that user reaction to the proposals being brought up here will be any different, just because we tell them "it's about their security" and "trust us, we know better". Of course, one can reject the analogies and claim that "this is different" and/or "this time the reaction will be different", and there's nothing I could produce as counter-argument to that except gut feelings based on our previous experience.