[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le |
Date: |
Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:26:21 +0300 |
> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>,
> address@hidden
> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:23:37 +0900
>
> I also find it faintly unclean when the system has to go around
> parsing symbol names to do things like change the EOL convention
> preferred for a buffer.
We don't parse the symbol name at all, AFAIR; instead, the properties
of each symbol are defined in advance by define-coding-system.
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, (continued)
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/14
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/15
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/15
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/15
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, David Kastrup, 2008/04/15
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/16
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, David Kastrup, 2008/04/16
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/16
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/17
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Jan Djärv, 2008/04/17
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/17
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/17
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/17
- 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