[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le |
Date: |
Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:44:38 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) |
Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
>>> You mean, it's almost exactly the same, except it's completely
>>> different? Then I agree,
>
>> "Start/end of line" and "Start of buffer/communication" is not
>> "completely different". Likewise, "\\`" and "^" are not "completely
>> different" regular expressions.
>
> But by EOL we don't mean "^" or "$", but "\n": this *is* completely
> different from "\\`".
I fail to see anything close to a coherent argument here, and it is
probably not relevant to the issue at hand, anyway. So we might as well
stop.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, (continued)
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/16
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stefan Monnier, 2008/04/16
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stefan Monnier, 2008/04/14
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, David Kastrup, 2008/04/14
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stefan Monnier, 2008/04/14
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, David Kastrup, 2008/04/14
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stefan Monnier, 2008/04/14
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stefan Monnier, 2008/04/15
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/14
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Kenichi Handa, 2008/04/14
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, tomas, 2008/04/14