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: lisp/ChangeLog coding system Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 14:56:32 +0300 (IDT) Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <200205010713.g417DKI07230@aztec.santafe.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1020254449 10376 127.0.0.1 (1 May 2002 12:00:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 12:00:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: gerd@gnu.org, kifer@cs.sunysb.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 172smv-0002hF-00 for ; Wed, 01 May 2002 14:00:49 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 172srd-0001xN-00 for ; Wed, 01 May 2002 14:05:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 172smE-0001Sq-00; Wed, 01 May 2002 08:00:06 -0400 Original-Received: from is.elta.co.il ([199.203.121.2]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 172skP-0001Oi-00; Wed, 01 May 2002 07:58:13 -0400 Original-Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA17680; Wed, 1 May 2002 14:56:32 +0300 (IDT) X-Sender: eliz@is Original-To: Richard Stallman In-Reply-To: <200205010713.g417DKI07230@aztec.santafe.edu> Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:3482 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:3482 On Wed, 1 May 2002, Richard Stallman wrote: > Actually changing the file seems rather drastic. > I think we should start with what Dave Love just sent us, > which is just to ask for extra confirmation. I don't have Dave's changes handy to look--did they actually allow to produce a file with "coding: foo" and encoded in something that isn't `foo'? If so, I think it's not a good idea to produce such a file, as it almost certainly will create problems when it is visited.