Re: Re: Re: Re: On Windows(R) Emacs «shell» mode doesn't prints an output.

[Yuri Khan <yuri.v.khan@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

>> > That's true, but you can work around that with wide (a.k.a. "Unicode")
>> > APIs, such as WriteConsoleW.  Not easy, but its doable; you can find
>> > the recipes and code on the Internet.
>>
>> Sure but in that case chcp doesn’t affect you at all and is therefore
>> unnecessary.
>
> I don't think so.  Windows will always convert the stuff you write to
> the console to the codepage that is in effect on that console, because
> cmd.exe is not a Unicode app.  So if you want to mix characters from
> different scripts, codepage 65001 is still required.

No. The console uses Unicode internally, as do …W functions. If your
program does too, all is well.

However, many programs are written against …A functions or against the
C runtime library, which also uses …A functions. In this case, the
console converts Unicode user input into the OEM code page expected by
the application, and converts the application output from the OEM code
page into Unicode.

>> Lucida Console is not the only font which is usable in the Windows
>> console. See, for example, MS Gothic:
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fonts/font.aspx?FMID=2145
>
> I don't see this font in the list of fonts you can select in the
> Property sheets of the cmd prompt on Windows XP and on Windows 7.  On
> XP, I can only select Lucida Console; on Windows 7 I can also select
> Consolas (whose coverage is slightly larger, and includes Thai, but
> still does not include CJK.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2007/05/16/2659903.aspx
and the MSDN article linked from there. Before I fully migrated to
Linux, I used Andale Mono and later Liberation Mono in the Windows
console to great effect (just because I like tall and narrow rather
than fat and squarish console fonts, not because of coverage).