From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: quimby.gnus.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [simon.marshall@misys.com: FW: [21.1.90]: should coding be recalculated on revert-buffer?] Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:11:30 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: quimby2.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: quimby2.netfonds.no 1014650300 14127 195.204.10.66 (25 Feb 2002 15:18:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@quimby2.netfonds.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Feb 2002 15:18:20 GMT Cc: Kenichi Handa , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby2.netfonds.no with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16fMtP-0003fl-00 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:18:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16fMqS-00010E-00; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:15:16 -0500 Original-Received: from is.elta.co.il ([199.203.121.2]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16fMnk-0000t5-00; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:12:28 -0500 Original-Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA05031; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:11:30 +0200 (IST) X-Sender: eliz@is Original-To: Stefan Monnier In-Reply-To: <200202251459.g1PEx7O16870@rum.cs.yale.edu> Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.5 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: quimby.gnus.org gmane.emacs.devel:1527 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:1527 On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > Here the user visited the file with Latin-2, then changed the file's > > encoding on disk into UTF-8, then reverted the buffer. Should Emacs > > autodetect in this case or not? > > I don't think it matters since both options can make sense depending > on the context. Yes, that was my point. We've been around these issues more than once, and the conclusion always was that the current default is no worse than the other possibilities. So we decided not to change the current behavior. > Prompting the user is another option. Perhaps as an option, and only in interactive invocation of revert-buffer; otherwise I'm afraid some VC-related commands will become a nuisance. _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel