Explicit encoding cookie in Elisp files, was: Re: bug#21568: [PATCH] Add prettify-symbols-alist for js-mode

[Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>]

On 09/28/2015 12:01 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> I see no ambiguity there.  There are requirements, and there's "a good
> idea" with an explanation that is left to the contributors to consider
> and decide.  I see nothing wrong with leaving the decision with them.

How about this wording?

but other files need them even if encoded in UTF-8.  However, if an *.el
file is intended for use with older Emacs versions (e.g. if it's also
distributed via ELPA), having an explicit encoding specification is
still a good idea.

> Then I'm sorry that my wording made such interpretation possible.  It
> was certainly not intended.

Thanks. It was exactly how I interpreted it.

> Let's agree to disagree about that, okay?

I don't mind having a difference in opinion, if you don't object to 
reverting db828f6. Having Elisp files default to UTF-8 is a good 
feature, and you're proposing to effectively ignore it.

> The form and the intense of the objections are out of proportions,
> for such an insignificant issue/disagreement.

Sorry about the strong wording. Apparently, that's how I react to a 
perceived feature/workflow regression made on purpose (not sure how to 
phrase this better).