[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Displaying bytes (was: Inadequate documentation of silly characters
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Displaying bytes (was: Inadequate documentation of silly characters on screen.) |
Date: |
Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:38:41 -0500 |
> Basically, it isn't clear that \361 is a byte rather than a character,
> and what difference that ought to make, and what you should do
> if you want to turn it from a byte into a character.
So how do you suggest we represent the byte 241?
No better way jumps into my mind. But maybe we could figure out some
way to make the current way easier to understand.
For instance, C-u C-x = on \224 says
character: (4194196, #o17777624, #x3fff94)
preferred charset: tis620-2533 (TIS620.2533)
code point: 0x94
syntax: w which means: word
buffer code: #x94
file code: #x94 (encoded by coding system no-conversion)
display: not encodable for terminal
Character code properties: customize what to show
[back]
Perhaps it should say,
character: Stray byte (4194196, #o17777624, #x3fff94)
What are the situations where a user is likely to see these stray
bytes. When visiting a binary file, of course; but in that situation,
nobody will be surprised or disappointed. So what are the other
cases, and what might the user really want instead? Does it mean the
user probably wants to do M-x decode-coding-region? If so, can we find a way
to give the user that hint?
When I click on tis620-2533 in that output, I get this
Character set: tis620-2533
TIS620.2533
Number of contained characters: 256
ASCII compatible.
Code space: [0 255]
[back]
which is totally unhelpful. What is this character set's main
purpose? Does it exist specifically for stray non-ASCII bytes?
If so, saying so here would help. If not -- if it has some other
purpose -- then it would be good to explain both purposes here.
Also, if it exists for these stray non-ASCII bytes, why does it have
256 chars in it? There are only 128 possible stray non-ASCII bytes.
(It is also not clear to me what "ASCII compatible" means in this
context.)
- Re: Fwd: Re: Inadequate documentation of silly characters on screen., (continued)
- Re: Fwd: Re: Inadequate documentation of silly characters on screen., David Kastrup, 2009/11/19
- Re: Fwd: Re: Inadequate documentation of silly characters on screen., Alan Mackenzie, 2009/11/19
- Re: Fwd: Re: Inadequate documentation of silly characters on screen., Davis Herring, 2009/11/19
- Re: Fwd: Re: Inadequate documentation of silly characters on screen., Alan Mackenzie, 2009/11/19
- Re: Fwd: Re: Inadequate documentation of silly characters on screen., David Kastrup, 2009/11/19
- Re: Fwd: Re: Inadequate documentation of silly characters on screen., Richard Stallman, 2009/11/21
- Displaying bytes (was: Inadequate documentation of silly characters on screen.), Stefan Monnier, 2009/11/22
- Re: Displaying bytes (was: Inadequate documentation of silly characters on screen.),
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: Displaying bytes (was: Inadequate documentation of silly characters on screen.), Per Starbäck, 2009/11/23
- Re: Displaying bytes (was: Inadequate documentation of silly characters on screen.), Richard Stallman, 2009/11/24
- Re: Displaying bytes (was: Inadequate documentation of silly characters on screen.), Kenichi Handa, 2009/11/24
- Re: Displaying bytes (was: Inadequate documentation of silly, Stefan Monnier, 2009/11/24
- Re: Displaying bytes (was: Inadequate documentation of silly, Lennart Borgman, 2009/11/24
- Re: Displaying bytes (was: Inadequate documentation of silly, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2009/11/25
- Re: Displaying bytes (was: Inadequate documentation of silly characters on screen.), Ulrich Mueller, 2009/11/25
- Re: Displaying bytes, Reiner Steib, 2009/11/26
- Re: Displaying bytes, Ulrich Mueller, 2009/11/26
- Re: Displaying bytes, Stefan Monnier, 2009/11/26