From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs-26 8f18d12: Improve documentation of decoding into a unibyte buffer Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 13:25:17 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20190525191039.14136.23307@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20190525191040.CCD6C207F5@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <83v9xv2649.fsf@gnu.org> <83imtv1fbf.fsf@gnu.org> <7F0B61E6-C0CA-449B-B432-095569589168@gnu.org> <83y32qzk9b.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="143061"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 28 19:25:41 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hVfr2-000b4n-6F for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 May 2019 19:25:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40021 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hVfr0-0007Wr-Ue for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 May 2019 13:25:38 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39973) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hVfqv-0007Wl-Dq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 May 2019 13:25:34 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hVfqr-0006xf-JW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 May 2019 13:25:31 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:29143) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hVfql-0006o7-Jt; Tue, 28 May 2019 13:25:23 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D7B30810F4; Tue, 28 May 2019 13:25:19 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail02.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AEE0E80077; Tue, 28 May 2019 13:25:18 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1559064318; bh=tEP1JDgINk5MqmK8ImK8jLBkHoQzxVmR0K/uo6Lc2vA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Jr7m9U6rBiFkW7Nk9Auf1ePYBHlCnQd9KyWhf+VMzSq8Pnmj0FL8Y7nYeni4jVZeP AWQGcQH6i/vUUmzpYlLfcKlm72QkL4Qe3ptxbSo2yuAK+fRQ60JtoiX4MnCf/pjGXs vCEjCkBnsiyzjd35re7DeaDE/3rWX7cXEnL330Ushw5cpeHptgmUb8XeHuYw5SVWI4 T8OcO7dwbN0D81I30oQD0+ksFWmaTAcWAT7YnQQRQFsNDq/G/m9xCXQipoxu7u7mRH ZOzXXE46wXrgRxPDnmibD7fXJL57vdI4JLPf/RP7TJU9NEa+m25ive8bOJBOIQZ0b6 iOA0Ys+wI1Xmg== Original-Received: from alfajor (192-171-44-92.cpe.pppoe.ca [192.171.44.92]) by mail02.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7FC2412009B; Tue, 28 May 2019 13:25:18 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83y32qzk9b.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Tue, 28 May 2019 18:11:44 +0300") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 132.204.25.50 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:237113 Archived-At: > OK, but how does this affect the issue at hand? We want to replace > string-as-unibyte, or remove it, and the obsolescence message says to > replace it with encode-coding-string. But this obsolescence message assumes that the call to string-as-unibyte was used because of a need to encode the strings using Emacs's internal coding-system. In this case, the string is already encoded (as stated by the function's name, the docstring, ...), so using encode-coding-string is rather odd. Also using string-to-unibyte will correctly signal an error if the caller forgot to send an *encoded* string. > Either way, using string-to-unibyte instead sounds less desirable > to me. I agree that removing the call altogether is the better option. Stefan