rusi | 1 Jun 04:42 2012
Picon

Re: those funny non-ASCII characters

On Jun 1, 2:46 am, Thien-Thi Nguyen <t... <at> gnuvola.org> wrote:
> Anyway, Unicode is ASCII-compatible, so probably if you wrangle
> your environment to Unicode by default, Emacs will also DTRT.
> Check out <http://www.utf8everywhere.org>.

Thanks very useful

> Yes, it does touch
> upon topics best avoided in polite company, but oh well...

??

Jason Rumney | 1 Jun 06:23 2012
Picon

Re: those funny non-ASCII characters

On Thursday, 31 May 2012 01:15:11 UTC+8, Buchs, Kevin  wrote:

> Xah suggested I embrace Unicode. So I could use (prefer-coding-system
> 'utf-8) or the file variable: -*- coding: utf-8 -*-. Are there drawbacks
> to the former? What about opening an ASCII coded file? Can emacs
> properly detect it or does it come up as UTF-8?

ASCII is a subset of UTF-8, so the problem you are imagining does not exist.

rusi | 1 Jun 07:43 2012
Picon

Re: those funny non-ASCII characters

On Jun 1, 9:23 am, Jason Rumney <jasonrum... <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 31 May 2012 01:15:11 UTC+8, Buchs, Kevin  wrote:
> > Xah suggested I embrace Unicode. So I could use (prefer-coding-system
> > 'utf-8) or the file variable: -*- coding: utf-8 -*-. Are there drawbacks
> > to the former? What about opening an ASCII coded file? Can emacs
> > properly detect it or does it come up as UTF-8?
>
> ASCII is a subset of UTF-8, so the problem you are imagining does not exist.

This does not exactly work that way on windows.
eg recently saw a description of how notepad put a BOM mark in a
haskell-script which made the haskell scripts unrunnable

Eli Zaretskii | 1 Jun 08:12 2012
Picon

Re: those funny non-ASCII characters

> From: rusi <rustompmody <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 22:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> On Jun 1, 9:23 am, Jason Rumney <jasonrum... <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 31 May 2012 01:15:11 UTC+8, Buchs, Kevin  wrote:
> > > Xah suggested I embrace Unicode. So I could use (prefer-coding-system
> > > 'utf-8) or the file variable: -*- coding: utf-8 -*-. Are there drawbacks
> > > to the former? What about opening an ASCII coded file? Can emacs
> > > properly detect it or does it come up as UTF-8?
> >
> > ASCII is a subset of UTF-8, so the problem you are imagining does not exist.
> 
> This does not exactly work that way on windows.
> eg recently saw a description of how notepad put a BOM mark in a
> haskell-script which made the haskell scripts unrunnable

We are talking about Emacs, not about Notepad, so it's unclear to me
how what Notepad does is relevant to the OP's question.

Xah Lee | 1 Jun 09:03 2012
Picon

Re: those funny non-ASCII characters

On May 31, 10:43 pm, rusi <rustompm... <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 9:23 am, Jason Rumney <jasonrum... <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 31 May 2012 01:15:11 UTC+8, Buchs, Kevin  wrote:
> > > Xah suggested I embrace Unicode. So I could use (prefer-coding-system
> > > 'utf-8) or the file variable: -*- coding: utf-8 -*-. Are there drawbacks
> > > to the former? What about opening an ASCII coded file? Can emacs
> > > properly detect it or does it come up as UTF-8?
>
> > ASCII is a subset of UTF-8, so the problem you are imagining does not exist.
>
> This does not exactly work that way on windows.
> eg recently saw a description of how notepad put a BOM mark in a
> haskell-script which made the haskell scripts unrunnable

haskell compiler probably should bear the blame. Last i read (~4 years
ago), the lang spec says source code should be unicode (i forgot if it
specified a encoding), however, no haskell compiler at the time
supports it. If your lang spec says unicode, you have to support BOM
mark.

〈Unicode BOM Byte Order Mark Hack〉
http://xahlee.org/comp/unicode_BOM_byte_orde_mark.html

http://www.unicode.org/faq/utf_bom.html#bom1

 Xah

Pierre Lorenzon | 1 Jun 08:51 2012
Picon

Re: Corrupted byte compiled files


Hi,

From: Johan Bockgård <bojohan+news <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Corrupted byte compiled files
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 19:46:00 +0200

> Tassilo Horn <tassilo <at> member.fsf.org> writes:
> 
>> Argh, some very recent change in trunk seems to have hosed
>> byte-compilation altogether for me.  I have several emacs addon packages
>> like Gnus, AUCTeX, helm cloned from their repositories, and as soon as I
>> byte-compile those with today's emacs (revno 108437), they won't work at
>> all.  It seems there are complete functions missing in the elc files and
>> I get dozens of "Wrong type argument" errors at different locations.
>> After deleting all elc files and running from the plain elisp sources,
>> everything works again.

   I think that the problem is different from mine. Indeed the
   compilation problem I encountered was due to the
   byte-compile-fix-header method which was clearly bugged. But
   we solved that.

   Pierre

> 
> Probably the same as
> 
> http://debbugs.gnu.org/11594

(Continue reading)

Tassilo Horn | 1 Jun 09:37 2012
Picon

Re: ffap history

Gary <listgj-emacs <at> yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> Is there any way to configre or extend ffap so that a history of
> opened files is maintained, even between emacs sessions?

Use `recentf-mode', which will work no matter how you've found the
files, be it dired, find-file, ffap, whatever.

  (recentf-mode 1)

Bye,
Tassilo

Doug Lewan | 1 Jun 15:36 2012

RE: those funny non-ASCII characters

Thanks for the UTF-8 pointer. I never appreciated just how complex this is.

When you get people involved in software it just sucks and it shouldn't.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+dougl=shubertticketing.com <at> gnu.org
> [mailto:help-gnu-emacs-bounces+dougl=shubertticketing.com <at> gnu.org] On
> Behalf Of Thien-Thi Nguyen
> Sent: Thursday, 2012 May 31 17:46
> To: Buchs, Kevin
> Cc: help-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
> Subject: Re: those funny non-ASCII characters
> Anyway, Unicode is ASCII-compatible, so probably if you wrangle
> your environment to Unicode by default, Emacs will also DTRT.
> Check out <http://www.utf8everywhere.org>.  Yes, it does touch
> upon topics best avoided in polite company, but oh well...
> 

rusi | 1 Jun 18:26 2012
Picon

Re: those funny non-ASCII characters

On Jun 1, 12:03 pm, Xah Lee <xah... <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 10:43 pm, rusi <rustompm... <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 1, 9:23 am, Jason Rumney <jasonrum... <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Thursday, 31 May 2012 01:15:11 UTC+8, Buchs, Kevin  wrote:
> > > > Xah suggested I embrace Unicode. So I could use (prefer-coding-system
> > > > 'utf-8) or the file variable: -*- coding: utf-8 -*-. Are there drawbacks
> > > > to the former? What about opening an ASCII coded file? Can emacs
> > > > properly detect it or does it come up as UTF-8?
>
> > > ASCII is a subset of UTF-8, so the problem you are imagining does not exist.
>
> > This does not exactly work that way on windows.
> > eg recently saw a description of how notepad put a BOM mark in a
> > haskell-script which made the haskell scripts unrunnable
>
> haskell compiler probably should bear the blame. Last i read (~4 years
> ago), the lang spec says source code should be unicode (i forgot if it
> specified a encoding), however, no haskell compiler at the time
> supports it. If your lang spec says unicode, you have to support BOM
> mark.
>
> 〈Unicode BOM Byte Order Mark Hack〉http://xahlee.org/comp/unicode_BOM_byte_orde_mark.html
>
> http://www.unicode.org/faq/utf_bom.html#bom1
>
>  Xah

See http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.0.0/ch02.pdf
(Continue reading)

Xah Lee | 1 Jun 23:06 2012
Picon

Re: those funny non-ASCII characters

Xah wrote
> > 〈Unicode BOM Byte Order Mark Hack〉 http://xahlee.org/comp/unicode_BOM_byte_orde_mark.html
>
> > http://www.unicode.org/faq/utf_bom.html#bom1

On Jun 1, 9:26 am, rusi <rustompm... <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> See http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.0.0/ch02.pdf
> (pg 36) "Use of a BOM is neither required nor recommended for UTF-8,
> but may
> be encountered in contexts where UTF-8 data is converted from other
> encoding forms..."
>
> More specifically the non-recommendation of bom: http://www.unicode.org/faq/utf_bom.html
> "Note that some recipients of UTF-8 encoded data do not expect a BOM.
> Where UTF-8 is used transparently in 8-bit environments, the use of a
> BOM will interfere with any protocol or file format that expects
> specific ASCII characters at the beginning, such as the use of "#!" of
> at the beginning of Unix shell scripts. "

didn't i mention these 2 points exactly in the link i gave??

 Xah


Gmane