From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: CSV parsing and other issues (Re: LC_NUMERIC) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2021 11:35:03 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20210606233638.v7b7rwbufay5ltn7@E15-2016.optimum.net> <83a6o1hn9l.fsf@gnu.org> <20210608004510.usj7rw2i6tmx6qnw@E15-2016.optimum.net> <83h7i9f5ij.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="5514"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Boruch Baum , manikulin@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 08 17:36:47 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lqdmZ-0001CR-Pq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 17:36:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38080 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqdmY-0002mu-NC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 11:36:46 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50886) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqdl0-0000aT-U7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 11:35:10 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:12671) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lqdky-00007P-8R; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 11:35:10 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8D93110028A; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 11:35:06 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 14EA2100234; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 11:35:05 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1623166505; bh=RR2+MtxGDz+5ySZETBgpipGZk+1y+1D2Yh8PNJk/82c=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=SO/tliV/OplG/NL0saV5CxgOevQxSp6l6cyseY4izUrgrCV4Xwmm3/r8STJaP4I8n IgGGgjHzwrfeKz47vYNtFCENl3MFn35GIPmd4ifu3Emf9UjScZGN808FkzK8jvRRUy p75feSNr6o03cBlj0yw8iyiRqELS6yP06IKyzR21TzWibJFUPDm8c069fkkQw817Xu mfFfAREfThqaAHdK9qwv5RjvKMwo1JqJF13pFvVtk3GQP7oVN2AZ5Zau+vFfioY1iv Xgd44aWpFgTtHGd/LS1nh+HMqDldsrf8C+VsWmrF0BWDI8wGhBbdQzPt9my2bvApFh sDYeFSOuYj+qQ== Original-Received: from alfajor (69-196-163-239.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.163.239]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C6EAC1203A2; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 11:35:04 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83h7i9f5ij.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Tue, 08 Jun 2021 05:35:00 +0300") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:270569 Archived-At: > First, language is different from locale. And second, we don't even > have a buffer-local notion of language yet. What we can support (but > seldom if ever do) is to have buffer-local case-conversion table, > which is a very small part of language- or locale-dependent settings. > > So no, buffer-local aspects in general don't affect what you have in > mind, not yet anyway. Worse: it's not uncommon to run code which doesn't really care about its current-buffer, so it's not always correct to presume that the settings of the current-buffer should be used. We already suffer from such problems in some corner cases with code that uses `\<` or `\_<` in regexps matching on strings (rather than buffer content) where the result can unexpectedly depend on the buffer which happens to be current. Stefan