ChangeLog and unification

ChangeLog and unification

[Eli Zaretskii]

Would people who use unify-on-en/decode please take care not to recode
Latin-n characters, for n != 2, as a side effect of committing changes
in ChangeLog files?  Apart of changing some people's names, it also
greatly bloats the messages sent to the emacs-diffs mailing list.

If there's no reasonable way to avoid this with local customizations,
let's design and implement a feature that will allow to do that.
(Such a feature seems to be a good idea in general, even for the
Unicode Emacs, since we are going to enter a transitional period where
some people use unifications, while others don't.  We should find a
way these two camps could peacefully coexist ;-)

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: ChangeLog and unification

[Kai Großjohann]

It seems I was the first one to break ChangeLog like that.  I'm sorry
about this.  I did stuff without thinking what it might break.

Rumor has it, one way to avoid ChangeLog being touched by unification
is via the coding system emacs-mule because it is not unified.  IIRC,
it is not clear whether this is a feature or a bug.

I would also be willing to implement support for a tag

    -*- inhibit-unification: t; -*-

or similar.  (Better suggestions for the name are always appreciated.)

What do people think?

(This has been discussed before.  At that time, we talked about
ucs-tables.el.  For that file, it is possible to express characters
as hex escapes.  I also have a message from Richard asking be to
implement the "-*-" tag.  Not sure whether this means that the matter
has been decided already.)

kai
-- 
~/.signature is: umop 3p!sdn    (Frank Nobis)

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: ChangeLog and unification

[Richard Stallman]

    I would also be willing to implement support for a tag

	-*- inhibit-unification: t; -*-

    or similar.

This is a useful feature, so please go ahead and implement this now.
The place to implement it is in set-auto-coding, mule.el.

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: ChangeLog and unification

[Andreas Schwab]

"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il> writes:

|> Would people who use unify-on-en/decode please take care not to recode
|> Latin-n characters, for n != 2, as a side effect of committing changes
|> in ChangeLog files?

Could you please give some advice how to do that?

|> Apart of changing some people's names

The names don't change, since the characters are the same, just encoded
differently.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE GmbH, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: ChangeLog and unification

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
> Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 17:53:54 +0100
> 
> |> Would people who use unify-on-en/decode please take care not to recode
> |> Latin-n characters, for n != 2, as a side effect of committing changes
> |> in ChangeLog files?
> 
> Could you please give some advice how to do that?

Sorry, I don't know.  If you don't know either, it probably means
there's a missing feature, in which case we should implement
something to make it possible.

> |> Apart of changing some people's names
> 
> The names don't change, since the characters are the same, just encoded
> differently.

Well, that's just the crux of the difference between using unification
and not using it, isn't it?  If Latin-n characters aren't unified,
they do look different, which could be quite annoying, depending on
how your fonts are set up.

It gets even worse if you don't notice the difference and copy parts
of text into another buffer, which can cause Emacs to ask for a
suitable encoding, with choices that many people won't like...

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: ChangeLog and unification

[Kai Großjohann]

Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> writes:

> "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il> writes:
>
> |> Would people who use unify-on-en/decode please take care not to recode
> |> Latin-n characters, for n != 2, as a side effect of committing changes
> |> in ChangeLog files?
>
> Could you please give some advice how to do that?

Right now, you can turn unify-8859-on-XXcode-mode off.

kai
-- 
~/.signature is: umop 3p!sdn    (Frank Nobis)

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: ChangeLog and unification

[Stefan Monnier]

> Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> writes:
> 
> > "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il> writes:
> >
> > |> Would people who use unify-on-en/decode please take care not to recode
> > |> Latin-n characters, for n != 2, as a side effect of committing changes
> > |> in ChangeLog files?
> >
> > Could you please give some advice how to do that?
> 
> Right now, you can turn unify-8859-on-XXcode-mode off.

You just ned to turn off the unify-on-decode.
The unify-on-encode is safe and does not do unification.  All it
does is to allow saving latin-1 chars into a latin-2 file (as long
as the latin-1 chars also exist in latin-2, of course).

I really think unify-on-encode should be turned ON by default
because I still haven't heard of any reasonable scenario where it can
do anything undesirable.  Actually, I can't even think of any reason
why we should try to make it possible to turn it off.


	Stefan


_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: ChangeLog and unification

[Richard Stallman]

    I really think unify-on-encode should be turned ON by default
    because I still haven't heard of any reasonable scenario where it can
    do anything undesirable.

Does anyone see a reason not to do this?

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: ChangeLog and unification

[Eli Zaretskii]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Richard Stallman wrote:

>     I really think unify-on-encode should be turned ON by default
>     because I still haven't heard of any reasonable scenario where it can
>     do anything undesirable.
> 
> Does anyone see a reason not to do this?

We could certainly try doing so in the CVS version.  If there are 
downsides to this, that would be a good way of exposing them.  Then we'd 
have enough data points to make the decision when Emacs 21.3 will go into 
pretest.

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: ChangeLog and unification

[Eli Zaretskii]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Stefan Monnier wrote:

> The unify-on-encode is safe and does not do unification.

What will it do if you yank a string with Latin-2 characters and then 
save the buffer?  Assuming that buffer-file-coding-system is 
iso-2022-7bit, will it save those Latin-2 characters as Latin-2 or as
Latin-1?  Also, what if I type characters with a latin-2 input method,
or with keyboard-coding-system set to latin-2--will the characters be 
saved as Latin-2 or Latin-1?

> All it does is to allow saving latin-1 chars into a latin-2 file (as long
> as the latin-1 chars also exist in latin-2, of course).

In a file encoded with one of the iso8859-x encodings, this is indeed a 
no-op.  The plot might thicken when you use iso-2022-derived encodings, 
which tag characters with their charset id.  (I say ``might'' because I 
really don't know what happens: I didn't yet have time to give 
unify-on-* modes a serious test ride.)

> I really think unify-on-encode should be turned ON by default
> because I still haven't heard of any reasonable scenario where it can
> do anything undesirable.

You may be right, but the bitter experience with Mule-related issues 
teaches me that we should be extra-cautious with turning features on by 
default.

> Actually, I can't even think of any reason
> why we should try to make it possible to turn it off.

That is almost certainly a bad idea: it should be possible to turn off
_any_ feature, certainly a Mule-related one.  Someone, some day, will 
want that.

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: ChangeLog and unification

[Stefan Monnier]

> > The unify-on-encode is safe and does not do unification.
> What will it do if you yank a string with Latin-2 characters and then
> save the buffer?  Assuming that buffer-file-coding-system is
> iso-2022-7bit, will it save those Latin-2 characters as Latin-2 or as
> Latin-1?

Latin-2 AFAIK, but I'll let you double check.

> > Actually, I can't even think of any reason
> > why we should try to make it possible to turn it off.
> That is almost certainly a bad idea: it should be possible to turn off
> _any_ feature, certainly a Mule-related one.  Someone, some day, will 
> want that.

Based on my understanding of the code, the only effect of unify-on-encode
is to increase the number of coding-systems that can be used for a given
buffer.  If you don't use one of the added coding-systems, the output
should be exactly the same as before.

Thus if you don't want the feature, you can use C-x RET f to specify
another coding-system.


	Stefan


_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel