From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: libnettle/libhogweed WIP Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 05:30:33 +0300 Message-ID: <83wpafbyk6.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83a89gq3us.fsf@gnu.org> <87bmtjiv0w.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> <83o9xjn06c.fsf@gnu.org> <87shmeb5ln.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> <83y3w5z1ez.fsf@gnu.org> <87lgr6yakj.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87wpamww9k.fsf@lifelogs.com> <8337daggnj.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1cdwxt6.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83tw5pg1q3.fsf@gnu.org> <87zifhulc2.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83h91og80k.fsf@gnu.org> <87pogbuhoe.fsf@lifelogs.com> <834lxndmd9.fsf@gnu.org> <87efwrug6z.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83bmrscvdb.fsf@gnu.org> <871ssos8jp.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83y3uwb995.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1492655410 12440 195.159.176.226 (20 Apr 2017 02:30:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:30:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 20 04:30:04 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d11r9-00031l-F2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 04:30:03 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51322 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d11rC-0001Qg-2i for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:30:06 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59697) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d11r4-0001QQ-Ey for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:29:59 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d11r0-0006Uh-GD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:29:58 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:56788) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d11r0-0006Ub-DW; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:29:54 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2461 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1d11qz-0002XX-Ox; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 22:29:54 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Wed, 19 Apr 2017 15:53:43 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:214142 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 15:53:43 -0400 > > > We could simply use choose_write_coding_system instead, we already use > > it for write-region, which can write either buffer text or a string. > > Then all the complexity that bothers you will go away, and be no more > > visible than it is when you call write-region. > > In my experience it's important for the coder to carefully choose which > coding-system should be used. So if we want the functions to do > encoding internally, then I'd prefer we have a non-optional > coding-system argument. "Automatically choose an appropriate > coding-system" encourages bugs. How is this different from write-region and its ilks?