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: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-26 0feb673: Display raw bytes as belonging to 'eight-bit' charset Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 00:04:24 +0300 Message-ID: <83zhycqtk7.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20180727064907.6305.13029@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20180727064909.85288203C0@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <87bmas3juo.fsf@gmail.com> <877elg4tbx.fsf@igel.home> <2499AA9B-E194-4EE0-BF2B-97F082B999EB@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1532725385 14184 195.159.176.226 (27 Jul 2018 21:03:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 21:03:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier , Kenichi Handa Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 27 23:03:01 2018 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 1fj9t6-0003Ym-Ua for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 23:03:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42980 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fj9vD-0003kT-RL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 17:05:11 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55904) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fj9uW-0003kD-7H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 17:04:29 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fj9uV-0004fD-DF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 17:04:28 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:38553) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fj9uR-0004bY-Pj; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 17:04:23 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2749 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1fj9uR-0006ZZ-Ce; Fri, 27 Jul 2018 17:04:23 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Fri, 27 Jul 2018 15:03:48 -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:227880 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 15:03:48 -0400 > > > In the Thai language environment, that just might make sense. > > I don't see why it would ever make sense. because users of the Thai language environment most probably know and understand what this charset is for. > Actually, I don't understand why > > (char-charset (unibyte-char-to-multibyte #x90)) > > should return `tis620-2533`, since the tis620.2533 standard defines > a coding-system similar to those of iso8859 and the corresponding chars > all exist in the BMP of Unicode (the "Thai block" U+0E01 through > U+0E7F), so I can't see any obvious reason why they should affect the > 3x3fffxx private space used by Emacs for "eight-bit chars". You are asking why we have this charset in the first place? > Could it be just a bug? No, it definitely isn't, look at how this charset is defined in mule-conf.el. Whether we still need it in modern Emacs is a separate question; I don't know the answer to that, but maybe Handa-san does.