From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jesper Harder Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: UUIDGEN in lisp Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:05:49 +0100 Organization: http://purl.org/harder/ Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1076966673 11161 80.91.224.253 (16 Feb 2004 21:24:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:24:33 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 16 22:24:25 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AsqE4-0004Zz-00 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:24:25 +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 1Asq8h-0005aM-Mh for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:18:51 -0500 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help X-Face: ^RrvqCr7c,P$zTR:QED"@h9+BTm-"fjZJJ-3=OU7.)i/K]<.J88}s>'Z_$r; List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:16915 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.help:16915 "Eli Zaretskii" writes: >> Binding coding-system-for-read is definitely necessary. I'm >> reading random bytes, and I don't want Emacs to convert any of the >> values. If I don't bind it, `uuid-random' can return a list like: >> >> (159 92 2210 119 150 148 2275 2265 2290 2220 2240 62 84 2235 150 18) >> >> which is wrong, since it's not a list of bytes. > > Do you have an actual example where that happens? The list above _is_ an actual example. It happens all the time if you don't bind coding-system-for-read -- just try it a few times :-) >> Uhm, I don't think there's anything strange about having to bind >> coding-system-for-read to binary -- I _am_ reading binary data, after >> all. > > raw-text is probably a better candidate. Why? Doesn't raw-text do EOL conversion? (which we don't want here).