From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: eight-bit char handling in emacs-unicode Date: 21 Nov 2003 09:59:59 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <200311130153.KAA04615@etlken.m17n.org> <200311130610.PAA04983@etlken.m17n.org> <200311130901.SAA05204@etlken.m17n.org> <200311140047.JAA06414@etlken.m17n.org> <200311180733.QAA13703@etlken.m17n.org> <200311190006.JAA14847@etlken.m17n.org> <200311210041.JAA18324@etlken.m17n.org> <200311210627.PAA18757@etlken.m17n.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1069434350 31122 80.91.224.253 (21 Nov 2003 17:05:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:05:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jas@extundo.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 21 18:05:47 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1ANEj5-0007tP-00 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:05:47 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1ANEj5-0005Rd-00 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:05:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1ANFWB-0006un-LR for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:56:31 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1ANFVn-0006u7-0V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:56:07 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1ANFVF-0006qT-9a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:56:04 -0500 Original-Received: from [132.204.24.67] (helo=mercure.iro.umontreal.ca) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1ANDj6-0000JB-K4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:01:44 -0500 Original-Received: from vor.iro.umontreal.ca (vor.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.24.42]) by mercure.iro.umontreal.ca (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hALExxbj019632; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:00:02 -0500 Original-Received: by vor.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 5E1073C63E; Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:59:59 -0500 (EST) Original-To: Kenichi Handa In-Reply-To: <200311210627.PAA18757@etlken.m17n.org> Original-Lines: 31 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 X-DIRO-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:18020 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:18020 >> Why/when is the distinction meaningful (given the fact that it >> can only be used meaningfully with 8bit coding-systems where the >> distinction seems more philosophical than anything else) ? > It is perfectly possible to live in such an environment > where only the charset iso-8859-1 is used but only the > coding system utf-8 is used. In this environment, the > results of encode-coding-string and string-make-unibyte are > of course not the same, but still both operations are > meaningful. I see that encode-coding-string does the utf-8 encoding, but what does string-make-unibyte do in such a case and what is it used for ? >> Until now, I always thought that Emacs only dealt with >> - byte streams representing encoded sequences of code points: case 1. >> - sequences of internal character codes (internally encoded in emacs-mule >> or unicode depending on the branch you use): case 3. >> Is there any place where we deal with sequences of code points of external >> charsets really (other than in the degenerate case where such a sequence >> is indistinguishable from case 1, maybe). > I'd like to repeat that although we don't have such an > environment now, it doesn't mean it is impossible to assume > such environment. I guess I don't understand how that is possible (and useful) and what that would look like. Stefan