GNU bug report logs - #1183
23.0.60; ediff-buffers is broken

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, Kenichi Handa <handa <at> m17n.org>
Cc: 1183 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org,
        kifer <at> cs.stonybrook.edu
Subject: bug#1183: 23.0.60; ediff-buffers is broken
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:34:27 +0200

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: 1183 <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com,  bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org,  Michael Kifer <kifer <at> cs.stonybrook.edu>
> Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:02:11 -0400
> 
> > In a discussion in Oct 2007, Stefan said that using the buffer's
> > encoding is wrong, see:
> 
> >   http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-10/msg01381.html
> 
> > Stefan wanted to use the equivalent of emacs-mule for Emacs 23 instead
> > of buffer's encoding, but do we have such an encoding now?  Is
> > no-conversion-multibyte it?  Or maybe utf-8 is good enough?
> 
> As mentioned in the past, I think `no-conversion' should be killed
> because it's confusing.  As for the problem at hand, utf-8-emacs-unix is
> what we want to use.

Suppose we write the temp files with utf-8-emacs-unix encoding--won't
that bite us when the output from Diff is then read with raw-text (see
ediff-exec-process)?

If raw-text won't work for utf-8-emacs output from Diff, is there a
better way than overriding the coding-system priorities with
`with-coding-priority'?

> > But first, we should decide whether we want such buffers to compare
> > equal or not.
> 
> I believe we do, because it's called ediff-buffers.  There's ediff-files
> for when you want to compare the files.

Don't you think having direct file comparison yield results that are
different from comparing buffers that visit those same files will be
confusing?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.