GNU bug report logs - #27391
25.2.50; utf-8 coding cookie is not applied on some specific markdown file

Previous Next

Full log

Message #38 received at 27391 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2 <at> gmail.com>
To: Vincent Belaïche <vincent.belaiche <at> gmail.com>, 
 Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, 27391 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#27391: 25.2.50; utf-8 coding cookie is not applied on some
 specific markdown file
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 21:39:59 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Philipp Stephani <p.stephani2 <at> gmail.com> schrieb am Fr., 16. Juni 2017 um
23:34 Uhr:

> Vincent Belaïche <vincent.belaiche <at> gmail.com> schrieb am Fr., 16. Juni
> 2017 um 23:28 Uhr:
>
>>
>>
>> Le 16/06/2017 à 21:37, Vincent Belaïche a écrit :
>> >
>> >
>> > Le 16/06/2017 à 21:15, Vincent Belaïche a écrit :
>> >>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> > After some more investigation, I think that the bug is in function
>> > insert-file-contents of fileio.c which is the one that decide and sets
>> > the coding system well before the other local variables are looked into.
>>
>> After some more investigation, in the end the find-auto-coding of
>> mule.el is what is called to detect the coding. This function calls some
>> re-coding regexp.
>>
>> Here is a test function defining the same regexp.
>>
>>
>> (defun doit ()
>>   (interactive)
>>   (let* ((prefix (regexp-quote "[comment]: # ("))
>>          (suffix (regexp-quote ")"))
>>          (re-coding
>>           (concat
>>            "[\r\n]" prefix
>>            ;; N.B. without the \n below, the regexp can
>>            ;; eat newlines.
>>            "[ \t]*coding[ \t]*:[ \t]*\\([^ \t\r\n]+\\)[ \t]*"
>>            suffix "[\r\n]")))
>>     (message (if (looking-at re-coding) "ok" "nak"))))
>>
>> I tried it with point at end of line
>>
>> [comment]: # ( Local Variables: )
>>
>> and it answered "ok". Now I defined this with re-search-forward instead
>> of looking-at:
>>
>> (defun doit ()
>>   (interactive)
>>   (let* ((prefix (regexp-quote "[comment]: # ("))
>>          (suffix (regexp-quote ")"))
>>          (re-coding
>>           (concat
>>            "[\r\n]" prefix
>>            ;; N.B. without the \n below, the regexp can
>>            ;; eat newlines.
>>            "[ \t]*coding[ \t]*:[ \t]*\\([^ \t\r\n]+\\)[ \t]*"
>>            suffix "[\r\n]")))
>>     (message (if (re-search-forward re-coding nil t) "ok" "nak"))))
>>
>> I placed the point before the coding: line, and I also got answer "ok"
>>
>> So I don't think that the regexp as such is to blame. Something else
>> seems to happen. It is too late now, I need to go to bed...
>>
>>   Vincent.
>>
>>
> I think it's actually the regexp that searches for "Local Variables". The
> following minimal example fails for me:
>
> (with-temp-buffer
>   (insert "
>
> [comment]: # ( Local Variables: )
> [comment]: # ( coding: utf-8 )
> [comment]: # ( End: )
>
> ")
> (goto-char (point-min))
> (re-search-forward
>  "[\r\n]\\([^[\r\n]*\\)[ \t]*Local Variables:[ \t]*\\([^\r\n]*\\)[\r\n]"))
>
>
Does anybody know why the second character range says [^[\r\n] instead of
 [^\r\n]? This seems to explicitly exclude a leading [.

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Previous Next

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