From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Unify on encoding Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:17:55 +0200 (IST) Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <200203190844.g2J8iGC09206@wijiji.santafe.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1016536880 28920 127.0.0.1 (19 Mar 2002 11:21:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:21:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16nHg7-0007WM-00 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:21:19 +0100 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16nHlN-00051y-00 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:26:45 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16nHfx-0008P8-00; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 06:21:09 -0500 Original-Received: from is.elta.co.il ([199.203.121.2]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16nHdn-0008Jf-00; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 06:18:55 -0500 Original-Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA18129; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:17:55 +0200 (IST) X-Sender: eliz@is Original-To: Richard Stallman In-Reply-To: <200203190844.g2J8iGC09206@wijiji.santafe.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: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:2036 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:2036 On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Richard Stallman wrote: > I'm guessing that quite a few people are using the CVS version nowadays, > so the option was, in a certain sense, ``released''. > > As a matter of principle, this is NOT a reason to keep a feature which > we decide is unnecessary. People who use the CVS version do so at > their own risk. This is a misunderstanding. The current mode of operation of released Emacs versions is that there's no unification on encoding. The CVS code added an option to turn on that unification. Stefan's question was about whether turning it on by default (to which I didn't object) should be accompanied by removing the possibility to turn it off. I only objected to the latter part, because doing so would change an important characteristic of the default operation without leaving an escape route for users who don't want the new default. I don't think I've ever seen defaults changed in Emacs without some option to go back. In other words, the option that was recommended to be removed ``exists'' in the released version--in the current default operation mode. > Let's take it out and see if anyone complains. What's the rush? An option that is turned off cannot possibly do any harm. Bitter experience with Mule should have taught us that we shouldn't make changes without a good reason. Isn't it better to get some experience from having unification turned on by default? _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel