GNU bug report logs - #27270
display-raw-bytes-as-hex generates ambiguous output for Emacs strings

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
Cc: v.schneidermann <at> gmail.com, 27270 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net
Subject: bug#27270: display-raw-bytes-as-hex generates ambiguous output for Emacs strings
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 22:56:21 +0300

> Cc: npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net, 27270 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
>  v.schneidermann <at> gmail.com
> From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:43:38 -0700
> 
> On 06/08/2017 11:59 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > That's a different issue. You said "\x905" was wrong visually, so I
> > asked how is that different, visually, from "\2205".
> 
> It's wrong visually, because I know the syntax for strings in Emacs 
> Lisp, and I know that "\x905" is supposed to be a 1-character string 
> whereas "\2205" is a two-character string.

How do you know "\2205" is a two character string?

What about this:

  (aset printable-chars #x3fffc nil) C-j
  (format "%c%c" #x3fffc ?5) C-j

Where does the octal codepoint end now?

> > Same thing happens when you copy/paste from an Emacs window which uses
> > a display table
> 
> The difference is that I don't use display tables and don't want to use 
> them. In contrast, I would like to use hexadecimal display, if it worked 
> as well as octal does (which it does not).

Then we need to code a separate feature in the Lisp reader, I think.

Previous Next

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