Re: Subject: [PATCH] * lisp/progmodes/ruby-mode.el: Set `ruby-insert-encoding-magic-comment' to nil by default.

[Bozhidar Batsov <bozhidar@batsov.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1859 bytes --]

On 2 November 2013 22:15, Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> wrote:

> On 02.11.2013 14:38, Bozhidar Batsov wrote:
>
>>     Also see
>>     http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2013-10/msg00236.html
>>
>>
>> Disabling this by default is not directly related to improving it. While
>> I think your suggestions for running this in an after-save-hook are
>> sound, I feel that the majority of Ruby programmers out there no longer
>> need this, so it doesn't make sense to have it on by default just to
>> make people search how to disable it (unless it stops messing with files
>> that are already using utf-8, which as you note is problematic for users
>> of Ruby 1.9).
>>
>
> I don't understand what you mean with the sentence in parentheses.
>

Sorry about the lack of clarity - I meant that if you have a Ruby 2.0 only
project you likely don't want the insertion of utf-8 coding comments.


>
> Ruby 1.9 still requires "coding: utf-8" cookies in unicode files that have
> non-ascii characters. There was a problem with inserting it ("coding:
> unknown" was often inserted instead), but that has been fixed.


Yeah, I'm aware of that. In my open source projects I still keep 1.9
compatibility and generally include those cookies in every file. Since I
want them included unconditionally (AFAIK many other Ruby programmers do
this as well for the sake of consistency) the magic-comment functionality
in ruby-mode is quite useless to me even for Ruby 1.9. If we add the option
to include the magic comment unconditionally that might increase the
usefulness of the setting for some people.


>
>
>  P.S. I also think we should insert the comment in Ruby style (e.g. "#
>> encoding: utf-8") instead of the current Emacs style encoding comment
>> (or make this customizable).
>>
>
> Maybe. I'm not sure what would be the benefit, but it sounds fine to me.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2943 bytes --]