Re: Inconsistencies regarding nil coding-system

[Kenichi Handa]

In article <address@hidden>, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

> > some old codes still treat nil for `no-conversion'

> I see a few of such places in coding.c; are there others?

I don't remember at the momemnt, but mule.el, mule-cmds.el,
and mule-util.el should be checked.

> If coding.c is the only place, I think we can safely change it to
> tread nil as unidecided.

> > and new codes consider nil as "unspecified" and thus treat it as
> > `undecided'.  Perhaps, ver. 24 is a good timing to wipe out this
> > confusion, but I'm not sure how to treat nil.  Nil should usually
> > mean "unspecified", and what exactly "unspecified" means depends on
> > a situaion.

> What would be a situation where it's inappropriate to interpret nil as
> undecided?

For instance, coding-system-for-read being bound to nil and
to `undecided' have different meanings.

---
Kenichi Handa
address@hidden