From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chris Moore Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: C file recoginzed as image file Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:50:33 +0100 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 1168370195 20080 80.91.229.12 (9 Jan 2007 19:16:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 19:16:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 09 20:16:33 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 1H4MSS-0000fU-Ju for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:16:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4MSR-0007HO-Ut for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:16:28 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H4MSA-0007FY-4z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:16:10 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H4MS5-0007DY-KC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:16:09 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H4MS5-0007DV-DQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:16:05 -0500 Original-Received: from [66.249.92.174] (helo=ug-out-1314.google.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1H4MS5-0007AR-1m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:16:05 -0500 Original-Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j3so7418166ugf for ; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:16:04 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:to:cc:references:from:date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type:x-sa-exim-connect-ip:x-sa-exim-mail-from:x-spam-checker-version:x-spam-level:x-spam-status:subject:x-sa-exim-version:x-sa-exim-scanned:sender; b=CEnR6bSwWV1Z4mBrKlBUN8JZ0a/SccIF50mdDqdJUILTJpO0C1YRYyAzrG/EjNJNIvshBlDExjSzUy3xZWDo/kQGh3C8BdqOlmxadXxztyqMUwh9w/281bJgZRHqThaN/0RjW+NgIhxOJJAm6okr8pvFDB8ufLZuDqGm/rEs2KQ= Original-Received: by 10.67.96.14 with SMTP id y14mr953347ugl.1168370163893; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:16:03 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from chrislap.local ( [89.176.28.156]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id j34sm34504888ugc.2007.01.09.11.16.02; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:16:02 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=chrislap.local) by chrislap.local with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H4M3N-0001tN-DX; Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:50:35 +0100 Original-To: "Juanma Barranquero" In-Reply-To: (Juanma Barranquero's message of "Tue\, 9 Jan 2007 10\:08\:29 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: dooglus@gmail.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Sun, 03 Dec 2006 00:39:09 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on chrislap.local) 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:65071 Archived-At: "Juanma Barranquero" writes: > On 1/9/07, David Kastrup wrote: > >> A contrived example is enough in my book for countering "absolutely, >> non-ambiguously". > > For countering what I was *not* saying, undoubtedly. So what exactly were you saying? You actually wrote: > a file with a .c extension containing a GIF image is absolutely, > non-ambiguously a GIF If you meant: "a file [...] containing a GIF image absolutely, non-ambiguously contains a GIF image", then that's tautological. I can't believe that's what you meant to say. What I think you meant was: "a file [...] which we detect as containing a GIF image is absolutely, non-ambiguously a GIF image", since that makes sense following your previous sentence about people using non-default file names, and that's the statement which David's contrived counterexample disproves.