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: Dynamic loading progress Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 05:29:02 +0200 Message-ID: <83vb8t1ji9.fsf@gnu.org> References: <8737w3qero.fsf@lifelogs.com> <831tbn9g9j.fsf@gnu.org> <878u5upw7o.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83ziya8xph.fsf@gnu.org> <83y4du80xo.fsf@gnu.org> <837fld6lps.fsf@gnu.org> <83si3z4s5n.fsf@gnu.org> <83mvu74nhm.fsf@gnu.org> <83d1v34hba.fsf@gnu.org> <83io4u2aze.fsf@gnu.org> <8337vx3kp6.fsf@gnu.org> <83y4dp24pq.fsf@gnu.org> <87ziy57nsw.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1448249373 8674 80.91.229.3 (23 Nov 2015 03:29:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:29:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: aurelien.aptel+emacs@gmail.com, p.stephani2@gmail.com, tzz@lifelogs.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 23 04:29:20 2015 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 1a0hod-0005mN-B9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 04:29:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58449 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a0hod-0007SD-9H for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:29:19 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:32978) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a0hoa-0007Rm-0f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:29:16 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a0hoZ-0003iu-2F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:29:15 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout24.012.net.il ([80.179.55.180]:33119) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a0hoV-0003hw-2k; Sun, 22 Nov 2015 22:29:11 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout24.012.net.il by mtaout24.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NY800F00Z8JHK00@mtaout24.012.net.il>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 05:21:59 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.94.185.246]) by mtaout24.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NY900BM000MO950@mtaout24.012.net.il>; Mon, 23 Nov 2015 05:21:58 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <87ziy57nsw.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.180 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:195092 Archived-At: > From: David Kastrup > Cc: Philipp Stephani , aurelien.aptel+emacs@gmail.com, tzz@lifelogs.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:59:43 +0100 > > > You can call it "undefined behavior" if you want. Personally, I don't > > think that's accurate: "undefined" means anything can happen, whereas > > Emacs at least promises to output the original bytes unchanged, as > > long as the text modifications didn't touch them. > > Uh, no? After converting from utf-8-unix to emacs-internal, Emacs' own > processing will not affect originally bad sequences in utf-8-unix. > However, that would require all string passing to include a > decoding/encoding step so that the nominal encoding used by the module > is utf-8-unix. That's exactly what I am proposing. > I think in the interest of both roundtrip times as well as general > usefulness of modules, it would be better if the default communication > encoding with the module would indeed be emacs-internal. No! Modules cannot convert non-ASCII text into emacs-internal (we don't expose the coding.c functionality through the API), and shouldn't have to. That is the job of the interface. > That way, modules can solve problems outside of Unicode proper. What problems are those? > This is definitely not a no-brainer: choosing utf-8-unix as the > communication encoding for modules would be an interface with less > dependency on Emacs' coding internals but it would pin down UTF-8 as the > only actual useful encoding modules could be made to deal with and would > incur performance penalties. That's exactly what's being proposed. But utf-8-unix is NOT the internal encoding, it's the Unicode-mandated UTF-8.