bug#15236: 24.3.50; Save file with Unicode chars in name on MS Windows replaces chars by SPCs

bug#15236: 24.3.50; Save file with Unicode chars in name on MS Windows replaces chars by SPCs

[Drew Adams]

This might be a duplicate of #7100 and #12807 - I cannot tell.  In any
case, the recipe here is different.

Whether the same bug or not, it seems like this kind of bug should be a
priority in 2013, not relegated to the wishlist since 2010.  Is it
possible that Emacs on MS Windows still cannot save files with Unicode
chars in the name?  Am I missing something?  Is this a Windows
limitation in general, perhaps?

emacs -Q

Create a new file buffer with a Unicode character, such as GREEK SMALL
LETTER LAMBDA, in the file name.  Note that the mode line of the buffer
shows the file name (buffer name) correctly, i.e., with the lambda chars.

Enter some text in the file buffer, including, for example, such a char.
Set the encoding to utf-8, to be sure.  Save the file.  The mode line
still shows the file name correctly.  All seems OK.  No error from Emacs.

But the name of the file actually created has a SPC char in place of
each GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMBDA char that should be there.  You can see
this in Dired, and if you open the file from there you can see it in the
mode line or via M-: (buffer-file-name).

Can this be fixed?  If not, how about letting the user know when s?he
saves the file that Emacs (or Windows?) has in fact changed the name?

In GNU Emacs 24.3.50.1 (i686-pc-mingw32)
 of 2013-08-23 on ODIEONE
Bzr revision: 113986 rgm@gnu.org-20130823185841-zoy6h1qk433ibrlf
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601
Configured using:
 `configure --prefix=/c/Devel/emacs/binary --enable-checking=yes,glyphs
 'CFLAGS=-O0 -g3' LDFLAGS=-Lc:/Devel/emacs/lib
 CPPFLAGS=-Ic:/Devel/emacs/include'

bug#15236: 24.3.50; Save file with Unicode chars in name on MS Windows replaces chars by SPCs

[Eli Zaretskii]

merge 15236 7100
thanks

> Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 10:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> 
> This might be a duplicate of #7100 and #12807 - I cannot tell.

It is.

> Whether the same bug or not, it seems like this kind of bug should be a
> priority in 2013, not relegated to the wishlist since 2010.  Is it
> possible that Emacs on MS Windows still cannot save files with Unicode
> chars in the name?  Am I missing something?  Is this a Windows
> limitation in general, perhaps?

It's not a Windows limitation, it's an Emacs limitation on Windows.

Patches are still welcome to support file names with characters
outside of the current ANSI codepage.

bug#15236: 24.3.50; Save file with Unicode chars in name on MS Windows replaces chars by SPCs

[Drew Adams]

> merge 15236 7100
> thanks
> > This might be a duplicate of #7100 and #12807 - I cannot tell.
> It is.

Thanks.

> > Whether the same bug or not, it seems like this kind of bug should be a
> > priority in 2013, not relegated to the wishlist since 2010.  Is it
> > possible that Emacs on MS Windows still cannot save files with Unicode
> > chars in the name?  Am I missing something?  Is this a Windows
> > limitation in general, perhaps?
> 
> It's not a Windows limitation, it's an Emacs limitation on Windows.
> 
> Patches are still welcome to support file names with characters
> outside of the current ANSI codepage.

How about changing the status to a normal bug from a wishlist item?

I would think this would be something fairly important by now.
(But I'm no expert on Unicode or its use cases.)

bug#15236: 24.3.50; Save file with Unicode chars in name on MS Windows replaces chars by SPCs

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 13:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> Cc: 15236@debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > It's not a Windows limitation, it's an Emacs limitation on Windows.
> > 
> > Patches are still welcome to support file names with characters
> > outside of the current ANSI codepage.
> 
> How about changing the status to a normal bug from a wishlist item?

"Wishlist" just means it's a missing feature, as opposed to a bug in
an existing feature.  It doesn't say anything about the importance of
the feature that is missing.