From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Nov 27 05:43:40 2012 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Nov 2012 10:43:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41126 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TdIdg-0005EW-2u for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 05:43:40 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60810) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TdIde-0005EP-BD for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 05:43:38 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TdIbt-0007yE-MS for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 05:41:50 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]:60706) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TdIbt-0007y5-It for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 05:41:49 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45762) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TdIbn-0001cM-Od for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 05:41:49 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TdIbi-0007uy-4P for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 05:41:43 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.220.41]:36602) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TdIbh-0007ur-Tj for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 05:41:38 -0500 Received: by mail-pa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id bj3so4803078pad.0 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 02:41:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:subject:from:to:date:organization:content-type:x-mailer :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3Uw3CNCjCXacWsjQ26O1Y31xuod83Bdwm1Vj1IsLnoo=; b=TXK/pHzw3XcZmzi6GBeMTppluaDNvpkahJRlk0vwvzj6JpjVGYKwjQRGwVuvrBQzP5 esGk60MNmx/BvV76VK/Tre6VHFWpcU41WSj8YLf5nvZRWuejixn+8DQJFBOiiGc50DfM 108MmYA3NKDlVbiVBVqvQHOG00eTvbCoyUxmkpCCsYI4hwjIXnF8Tv146Uf+S34SOcD/ QTv005gl7odxhBEbOWfuNggmpHNKLym60YY8gbwjsTrTxfuvzdyXxq9hHWVT7xkMrMg3 +iyy+scZ0xor7ssOlaYOtBIzcZb7inOJmLMiF2V5Ab8vL0yIz+u07T7HxAcau1SqavLg HXPg== Received: by 10.68.237.135 with SMTP id vc7mr47052689pbc.2.1354012896138; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 02:41:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from [147.2.147.112] ([61.14.130.226]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m4sm3887323pav.17.2012.11.27.02.41.33 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 27 Nov 2012 02:41:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1354012891.11146.23.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> Subject: Invalid oct number convertion in string From: nalaginrut To: bug-guile@gnu.org Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:41:31 +0800 Organization: HFG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 208.118.235.17 X-Spam-Score: -3.4 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -3.4 (---) Here is the story: =====================cut=============================== scheme@(guile-user)> (format #t "\033[32;31mhello\033[5m") 33[32;31mhello33[5m$2 = #t scheme@(guile-user)> (format #t "\x1b[32;31mhello\x1b[5m") hello (in red color) =====================end=============================== Seems "\033" can't be converted to "\x1b", and I tried "\o1b" failed. I believe it ought to be a bug. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Nov 27 17:46:05 2012 Received: (at 13008) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Nov 2012 22:46:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42279 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TdTun-0001S2-70 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:46:05 -0500 Received: from xanadu.aquilenet.fr ([88.191.123.111]:60309) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TdTuj-0001Ra-RA for 13008@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:46:03 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xanadu.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DFD6A38B; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:44:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from xanadu.aquilenet.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (xanadu.aquilenet.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h9wCNyWszKan; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:44:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from pluto (reverse-83.fdn.fr [80.67.176.83]) by xanadu.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B1C2F9ED9; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:44:07 +0100 (CET) From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: nalaginrut Subject: Re: bug#13008: Invalid oct number convertion in string References: <1354012891.11146.23.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:44:07 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1354012891.11146.23.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> (nalaginrut@gmail.com's message of "Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:41:31 +0800") Message-ID: <87mwy2ekeg.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130005 (Ma Gnus v0.5) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 1.5 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi! nalaginrut skribis: > scheme@(guile-user)> (format #t "\033[32;31mhello\033[5m") [...] Content analysis details: (1.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.7 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13008 Cc: 13008@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 1.5 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi! nalaginrut skribis: > scheme@(guile-user)> (format #t "\033[32;31mhello\033[5m") [...] Content analysis details: (1.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.7 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] Hi! nalaginrut skribis: > scheme@(guile-user)> (format #t "\033[32;31mhello\033[5m") Here, \0 is taken to mean #\nul, and then there are two #\3. IOW, there is no such syntax for octal escapes (info "(guile) String Syntax"). What made you think otherwise? Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Nov 27 21:34:06 2012 Received: (at 13008) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Nov 2012 02:34:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42389 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TdXTS-00011m-LF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:34:06 -0500 Received: from mail-ia0-f172.google.com ([209.85.210.172]:36167) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TdXTQ-00011b-A0 for 13008@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:34:05 -0500 Received: by mail-ia0-f172.google.com with SMTP id j26so9556057iaf.3 for <13008@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:32:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:content-type:x-mailer:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=C4ciVA8oSNetHvrcrQyNHLE5oq6P+82Sfqm+HL48Av4=; b=WWkKdiPrARVL5O6yMnjHPOoGOiEv+3Ykbz1fY+viDxUzg34qcvBlfHRWNHpZOjcntE e7ZDJlw1ufriAGQHhEtf2uLu2uCG3TjUPj0/L3IKeDauGXzqMjK3Cz4hqCCCeNed0AQH l51ucArSDhhy/6bONorI2dstJL+OqIfPoO4bkBDprgEdhYvArYWZ6q7+7FXa17Qytw4m o9bcup0DHakO1+s/6zLba3gFohrEaPpKvWKGEoEqcuZQ+QIPKixFwc2uhnwcVf8F2O7B iv4TFFY7N4FRGg69RIzXNoojkY5QXUJYkbkqwHkx6hTbO61vtWkw4FM47WvfIgDEu3ix bpVA== Received: by 10.50.187.197 with SMTP id fu5mr17423782igc.70.1354069930616; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:32:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from [147.2.147.112] ([61.14.130.226]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id kp4sm3429889igc.1.2012.11.27.18.32.07 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:32:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1354069924.11146.29.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> Subject: Re: bug#13008: Invalid oct number convertion in string From: nalaginrut To: Ludovic =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:32:04 +0800 In-Reply-To: <87mwy2ekeg.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1354012891.11146.23.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> <87mwy2ekeg.fsf@gnu.org> Organization: HFG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13008 Cc: 13008@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 23:44 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hi! > > nalaginrut skribis: > > > scheme@(guile-user)> (format #t "\033[32;31mhello\033[5m") > > Here, \0 is taken to mean #\nul, and then there are two #\3. > > IOW, there is no such syntax for octal escapes (info "(guile) String > Syntax"). > > What made you think otherwise? > Thanks for reply! It's fine in ruby-1.9 and python2, but python3 failed. IIRC, Andy told me that guile2/python3 use "character string" rather than "byte string", so there's different from others. Now my question is, should we have octal-escapes? Is is impossible or not implemented yet? Thanks! > Thanks, > Ludo’. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Nov 27 22:36:22 2012 Received: (at 13008) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Nov 2012 03:36:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42404 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TdYRi-0002TC-6b for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:36:22 -0500 Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]:41669) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TdYRe-0002T2-G1 for 13008@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:36:19 -0500 Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id dt10so5945505wgb.15 for <13008@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:34:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zD6cOvkeRWXgFgnvU2af2Z/D5I24j7BAJ3HZqnpDXeA=; b=Mdg1VmUoWuxyo/nN2ofU4/VtsyB5IACHR5n8FmryiSt16OSlWGOPs3hw2qnV8wZpK5 U81RS+L1xCceLlIW8Am4M2qUMYqsG2tkf69KaTtFkLk/+DZWukpw+fJvEv96YiTv+ZFZ AFY0CUv55WgqLED9H3e/2ih3GtpLeUXDg07xEz4+nXnG0iREZwFwKx60dGldQFqa6V2m NZ9pkI/ypcbp3bZwo6SQco7/TVNbKlD85SIE0EcOC37QZsM6UMO5X5W/FKrtsSt5qkL2 icGzGN4R7/9W9O5Bz8omkKa8IOf/Vhln2X4BbofGXzh7RH5vRwoOWC1XQ58/M/QNSHg/ 3tmA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.7.199 with SMTP id l7mr26765213wia.15.1354073665737; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:34:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.192.79 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:34:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1354069924.11146.29.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> References: <1354012891.11146.23.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> <87mwy2ekeg.fsf@gnu.org> <1354069924.11146.29.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:34:25 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#13008: Invalid oct number convertion in string From: Daniel Hartwig To: nalaginrut Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13008 Cc: 13008@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) On 28 November 2012 10:32, nalaginrut wrote: >> > scheme@(guile-user)> (format #t "\033[32;31mhello\033[5m") >> >> Here, \0 is taken to mean #\nul, and then there are two #\3. >> >> IOW, there is no such syntax for octal escapes (info "(guile) String >> Syntax"). >> >> What made you think otherwise? >> > Now my question is, should we have octal-escapes? Is is impossible or > not implemented yet? You can use two or four digit hex codes, =E2=80=9C\xHH=E2=80=9D and =E2=80= =9C\uHHHH=E2=80=9D. Is it useful to support octal on top of that? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Nov 28 01:00:51 2012 Received: (at 13008) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Nov 2012 06:00:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42461 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TdahX-00066k-PH for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 01:00:51 -0500 Received: from mail-ia0-f172.google.com ([209.85.210.172]:61098) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TdahW-00066d-GG for 13008@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 01:00:51 -0500 Received: by mail-ia0-f172.google.com with SMTP id j26so9658462iaf.3 for <13008@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:58:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:content-type:x-mailer:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gxlT8HPO7/I9XwB/8pZacyjqdpKoBiTT8LOLZ4k4q4o=; b=dqwIGnka9krnnL2byMlI4gshBuPxq4fAtKOVpMq3S+0mXKk0mo11gni1O5VetHb3d3 ijo1B69qy+8AlCgaa/BQHSpnVf4AwLltjRx7paS/neNXUNRyOtBUC0/5V3uDhkUUrEiI cNHyF/cza4ATEkbWtsqPimqlbVsZeOCej47EUBKyIufKjxujHvnWafUvejbG+IiJlfPi dX6rqKPrQcwXv7M27YZQoIkqO2sLNoQXwkbAVjbVyf2nTqMpRqx1lVA3JuZfhL+50+l2 kzAEBFFr1dpyR26pN7JYozaEDut/egzCQaIPOMtN86iWk+GBtqjDOPQTGx0qskZ2fERq 8X4A== Received: by 10.43.58.14 with SMTP id wi14mr16192525icb.9.1354082336108; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:58:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [147.2.147.112] ([61.14.130.226]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 10sm3552778ign.5.2012.11.27.21.58.53 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:58:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1354082331.11146.31.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> Subject: Re: bug#13008: Invalid oct number convertion in string From: nalaginrut To: Daniel Hartwig Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:58:51 +0800 In-Reply-To: References: <1354012891.11146.23.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> <87mwy2ekeg.fsf@gnu.org> <1354069924.11146.29.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> Organization: HFG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13008 Cc: 13008@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 11:34 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote: > On 28 November 2012 10:32, nalaginrut wrote: > >> > scheme@(guile-user)> (format #t "\033[32;31mhello\033[5m") > >> > >> Here, \0 is taken to mean #\nul, and then there are two #\3. > >> > >> IOW, there is no such syntax for octal escapes (info "(guile) String > >> Syntax"). > >> > >> What made you think otherwise? > >> > > > Now my question is, should we have octal-escapes? Is is impossible or > > not implemented yet? > > You can use two or four digit hex codes, “\xHH” and “\uHHHH”. Is it > useful to support octal on top of that? Yes, I can use hex instead. But, why we couldn't provide octal? Or it needs to be done? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Nov 28 08:43:46 2012 Received: (at 13008) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Nov 2012 13:43:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42824 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TdhvV-0002nW-Ds for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:43:46 -0500 Received: from xanadu.aquilenet.fr ([88.191.123.111]:41887) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TdhvP-0002nM-Ip for 13008@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:43:40 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xanadu.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5260CABE4; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:41:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from xanadu.aquilenet.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (xanadu.aquilenet.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4lIPb4uavd2k; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:41:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from pluto (reverse-83.fdn.fr [80.67.176.83]) by xanadu.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DD9E9A570; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:41:42 +0100 (CET) From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: nalaginrut Subject: Re: bug#13008: Invalid oct number convertion in string References: <1354012891.11146.23.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> <87mwy2ekeg.fsf@gnu.org> <1354069924.11146.29.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 8 Frimaire an 221 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 83C4 F8E5 10A3 3B4C 5BEA D15D 77DD 95E2 EA52 ECF4 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:41:42 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1354069924.11146.29.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> (nalaginrut@gmail.com's message of "Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:32:04 +0800") Message-ID: <877gp5deuh.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130005 (Ma Gnus v0.5) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 1.5 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: nalaginrut skribis: > Now my question is, should we have octal-escapes? Is is impossible or > not implemented yet? Nothing’s impossible, but there are already several kinds of escapes, most of which are standardized, so I don’t think we need another one. [...] Content analysis details: (1.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.7 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13008 Cc: 13008@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 1.5 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: nalaginrut skribis: > Now my question is, should we have octal-escapes? Is is impossible or > not implemented yet? Nothing’s impossible, but there are already several kinds of escapes, most of which are standardized, so I don’t think we need another one. [...] Content analysis details: (1.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.7 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.4995] nalaginrut skribis: > Now my question is, should we have octal-escapes? Is is impossible or > not implemented yet? Nothing=E2=80=99s impossible, but there are already several kinds of escape= s, most of which are standardized, so I don=E2=80=99t think we need another on= e. Closing this as not-a-bug. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Nov 28 08:44:07 2012 Received: (at request) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Nov 2012 13:44:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42828 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tdhvr-0002oW-Ep for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:44:07 -0500 Received: from xanadu.aquilenet.fr ([88.191.123.111]:41891) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tdhvp-0002oP-2t for request@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:44:05 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xanadu.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7B46ABE4 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:42:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from xanadu.aquilenet.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (xanadu.aquilenet.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eZg0d0dlMjBB for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:42:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from pluto (reverse-83.fdn.fr [80.67.176.83]) by xanadu.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A159DA570 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:42:09 +0100 (CET) From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: request@debbugs.gnu.org X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 8 Frimaire an 221 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 83C4 F8E5 10A3 3B4C 5BEA D15D 77DD 95E2 EA52 ECF4 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:42:08 +0100 Message-ID: <8738ztdetr.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130005 (Ma Gnus v0.5) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: tags 13008 notabug close 13008 thanks [...] Content analysis details: (3.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.7 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header 0.2 NO_SUBJECT Extra score for no subject X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: request X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: tags 13008 notabug close 13008 thanks [...] Content analysis details: (3.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.7 SPF_SOFTFAIL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail) 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.4931] 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header 0.2 NO_SUBJECT Extra score for no subject tags 13008 notabug close 13008 thanks From unknown Sun Jun 22 00:27:57 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:24:03 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator