Re: emacs-26 8f18d12: Improve documentation of decoding into a unibyte buffer

[Eli Zaretskii]

On May 28, 2019 5:56:18 AM GMT+03:00, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> > For a multibyte string that was encoded already, encoding by
> >> > utf-8-emacs-unix is IMO the _only_ thing that makes sense.
> >> I disagree: a multibyte string that was encoded already should only
> >> contain ASCII and "eight-bit raw byte chars"
> > But both ASCII and raw bytes have multibyte representation.
> 
> Not sure why you say "but" here: I was also talking abut a multibyte
> string, so I obviously agree.
> 
> > If the destination of the encoding is a multibyte buffer, that is
> what
> > you get there, and then taking buffer-substring will give you
> > a multibyte string with encoded text.  I don't see why we shouldn't
> > support this scenario.
> 
> I'm not sure where you read that I was arguing we shouldn't support
> this scenario.  I was just pointing out that utf-8-emacs-unix is not
> the
> only thing that makes sense: string-to-unibyte should work just as
> well
> (if not better).
> 
> 
>         Stefan

string-to-unibyte is also marked obsolete.  Robert was asking how to use 
encoding functions instead of the obsolete string-as-unibyte; advising to use 
yet another obsolete function makes little sense to me.