From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Michael Kifer Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#1183: 23.0.60; ediff-buffers is broken Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:05:33 -0400 Organization: Stony Brook University Message-ID: <20081017130533.3c3070bc@kiferserv> References: <00a101c92fbf$998d19b0$c2b22382@us.oracle.com> <00eb01c92fd0$1be49cc0$c2b22382@us.oracle.com> <002501c93078$21bf8c60$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> Reply-To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu, 1183@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1224264817 14344 80.91.229.12 (17 Oct 2008 17:33:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 17:33:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 1183@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com, 'Michael Kifer' , bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: "Drew Adams" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 17 19:34:36 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KqtDg-0006aQ-Gi for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 19:34:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46585 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KqtCb-00038C-Ji for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:33:29 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Kqt9R-0002LR-LP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:30:13 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Kqt9P-0002Kr-KD for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:30:12 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60623 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Kqt9P-0002Km-GF for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:30:11 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu ([138.23.92.77]:55639) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Kqt9O-000584-U0 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:30:11 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu (rzlab.ucr.edu [127.0.0.1]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id m9HHU0ov005209; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:30:01 -0700 Original-Received: (from debbugs@localhost) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id m9HHF5cg001765; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:15:05 -0700 X-Loop: don@donarmstrong.com Resent-From: Michael Kifer Resent-To: bug-submit-list@donarmstrong.com Resent-CC: Emacs Bugs Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 17:15:05 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: don@donarmstrong.com X-Emacs-PR-Message: report 1183 X-Emacs-PR-Package: emacs X-Emacs-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 1183-submit@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com id=B1183.1224263138347 (code B ref 1183); Fri, 17 Oct 2008 17:15:05 +0000 Original-Received: (at 1183) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 17 Oct 2008 17:05:38 +0000 Original-Received: from sbcs.cs.sunysb.edu (sbcs.cs.sunysb.edu [130.245.1.15]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id m9HH5YVZ000341 for <1183@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com>; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:05:36 -0700 Original-Received: from kiferserv (compserv1 [130.245.1.44]) by sbcs.cs.sunysb.edu (8.13.6/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m9HH5Wlr015706; Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:05:32 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <002501c93078$21bf8c60$0200a8c0@us.oracle.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.6.1 (GTK+ 2.12.9; i486-pc-linux-gnu) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:30:12 -0400 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:21625 Archived-At: On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:48:06 -0700 "Drew Adams" wrote: > > > But first, we should decide whether we want such buffers to compare > > > equal or not. > > > > I believe we do, because it's called ediff-buffers. There's > > ediff-files for when you want to compare the files. > > That's terrible. Ediff-buffers has always been usable directly for buffers > visiting files also. I didn't see the original post, but the general idea was that whenever things look the same in Emacs they should be treated as equal (or equal module spaces). I do not think the user should be bothered with encodings. Copying from buffer to buffer should also be transparent. (And ediff-files and ediff-buffers should produce the same results.) Unfortunately, I have not been following the developments in the last few years, and my knowledge of the mechanics became rusty. --michael > It's OK for ediff-buffers to be more refined than before, to be able to take > into account current encodings etc. for the buffers, but it should inform the > user of the situation and let the user, if s?he wants, proceed to compare the > buffers using the same encodings etc. - or whatever is necessary to see the > actual textual differences, beyond encoding etc. differences. > > The same behavior as previously (Emacs 22) should be available as a user choice > if the only differences are line endings, encodings, etc. And such differences > as line endings should at least be treated as differences and shown as such. > It's no good to just say the buffers are different, without offering more info > than that. > > IOW, ediff-buffers should be at least as useful as it was before. Adding coding > diffs should be a plus, not a minus. Simply punting, showing a single giant diff > with no possible refinement and no explanation, is not helpful. > > > > We could also let them compare equal, but display a message to the > > > effect that the buffers define different encoding for saving them to > > > files. Opinions? > > > > That would be fine, indeed. > > Fine, but not enough. If a user wants to see the textual differences between the > two buffers, the info that the encodings are different is not helpful enough to > get the job done. In the case described, there are real textual differences (an > added Lisp sexp), and ediff-buffers is not at all helpful in showing them. > > >