Re: Your last change to browse-url is bogus.

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Michaël Cadilhac writes:

 > YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu <address@hidden> writes:
 > 
 > > %-escaping in browse-url-file-url (filename -> url) and those in other
 > > places such as browse-url-netscape (url -> url) are inherently
 > > different operations.
 > 
 > Not quite.  I may have a too low-level point of view, but they are the
 > same operations, they are just not used for the same purpose.

That depends on how you look at it.  If you think of them as
operations on characters, they're the same.  If you think of them as
operations on strings, they're different (ie, it's possible to find
strings which are not transformed tthe same way by both operations).

I tend to agree with Yamamoto-san, because even if the string->string
maps were identical, having the names specify the intended domain
helps with deciding when to apply them at all.

 > Well, I'm not so sure.  Their purpose is to escape characters in a way
 > we don't want to duplicate too much.  The «problem» you're pointing out
 > is the reason why I made the escaping function take the set of
 > characters to escape in a first place.

In that case it would make sense to give the escaping function that
takes the set of characters an "-internal" or "-helper" name (excuse
me, I don't know the GNU conventions for this), and use nice efficient
defsubsts for the semantically mnemonic public entry points.