Re: prettify symbols question

["Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org>]

   > What would the proper way to handle say #o210 in prettify-symbols?
   > 
   > I've attached a simple test, I would expect to see the #o210 sequence
   > in the file to be shown as a unicode lambda, but nothing changes -- I
   > suspect it is due to some encoding mismatch between the buffer and the
   > string.

   prettify-symbols-mode doesn't act on text in comments, see
   'prettify-symbols-default-compose-p'.  If you move your #o210 out of
   the comment, it should get displayed as you expect.

Ah, that explains some.

   You can replace 'prettify-symbols-default-compose-p' with your own
   function, and set up 'prettify-symbols-compose-predicate' to use it
   instead of the default predicate, if you want to prettify stuff in
   comments.

Thank you for the tip, that will be useful (I need this to act on all
sequences even in symbols).

   If the above doesn't work, then maybe it _is_ related to encoding.
   What does the mode line say about 'buffer-file-coding-system when' you
   visit this file?

So when the buffer-file-coding-system is utf-8-unix everything works
(where also the sequence is not acted on in comments).  But when the
buffer is raw-text-unix, it does not work for #o210, but works for say
#o10.  Some multi-byte thing going on?