From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: C file recoginzed as image file Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:38:12 -0500 Message-ID: References: <854pr1gsnm.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85zm8tfdhm.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <86vejgr5sx.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1168382313 381 80.91.229.12 (9 Jan 2007 22:38:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 22:38:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Chris Moore , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 09 23:38:31 2007 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 1H4Pbx-0005c7-3p for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:38:29 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4Pbw-0002iv-L4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:38:28 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H4Pbj-0002iR-UW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:38:15 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H4Pbi-0002hl-8K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:38:15 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4Pbi-0002hg-4r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:38:14 -0500 Original-Received: from [209.226.175.188] (helo=tomts25-srv.bellnexxia.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1H4Pbh-00065H-Mo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:38:13 -0500 Original-Received: from pastel.home ([74.12.206.167]) by tomts25-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.13 201-253-122-130-113-20050324) with ESMTP id <20070109223812.VGDC6280.tomts25-srv.bellnexxia.net@pastel.home> for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2007 17:38:12 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id A5E658B70; Tue, 9 Jan 2007 17:38:12 -0500 (EST) Original-To: "Juanma Barranquero" In-Reply-To: (Juanma Barranquero's message of "Tue\, 9 Jan 2007 20\:47\:23 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.91 (gnu/linux) 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:65085 Archived-At: > The point is that contents detection is not infallible, but it is much > more reliable (if done correctly) than extension matching. I don't see > why we should treat the latter as more significant (or even equally > significant) that the former. Content detection sometimes works well, but sometimes not. OTOH name-based detection overall works more reliably because that's what Unix has used for many years. I think that giving precedence to one over the other is an error. Stefan