From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:20:21 +0200 Message-ID: <851w58q24a.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <87wsn1fl72.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87prssgacl.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1208161272 28899 80.91.229.12 (14 Apr 2008 08:21:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:21:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 14 10:21:46 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JlJwR-0003si-A0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:21:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JlJvm-0005Av-Qj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:20:50 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JlJvf-00058p-Sz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:20:43 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JlJvc-00053a-Mt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:20:42 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JlJvb-00053O-Qi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:20:40 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-14.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.54]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JlJvW-0008Vs-EO; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:20:34 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-in-14-z2.arcor-online.net (mail-in-14-z2.arcor-online.net [151.189.8.31]) by mail-in-14.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9161879E2; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:20:28 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from mail-in-07.arcor-online.net (mail-in-07.arcor-online.net [151.189.21.47]) by mail-in-14-z2.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B6B7100FB; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:20:28 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from lola.goethe.zz (dslb-084-061-061-208.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.61.61.208]) by mail-in-07.arcor-online.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61157292B67; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:20:28 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id BA07E1C452D3; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:20:21 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87prssgacl.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> (Stephen J. Turnbull's message of "Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:32:42 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92.1/6755/Mon Apr 14 09:35:52 2008 on mail-in-07.arcor-online.net X-Virus-Status: Clean X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:95169 Archived-At: "Stephen J. Turnbull" writes: > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > Maybe it is (I didn't yet have time to look at the code), but there > > could be a good reason for that. If it's so easy to recognize the > > BOM, why do we need versions with and without it? > > I don't know, in fact I think I think it's a bad idea. That's what > the part of my message that you snipped was saying. But I'll have to > defer to Handa-san on that. I think it obvious: if a BOM mark gets detected on read, one wants to have it removed from the buffer and reinserted on saving the buffer. I am just not sure what the semantics for recoding/encoding/decoding regions are. They should not mess with BOM in any case, I would suppose. But then reading a file is not equivalent to reading it literally in unibyte mode and then decoding the buffer-region. Maybe there never was such an equivalence (can't be for shift codes, can it?). -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum