[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [vile] vile-9.6j.patch.gz
From: |
Paul van Tilburg |
Subject: |
Re: [vile] vile-9.6j.patch.gz |
Date: |
Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:32:27 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) |
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 08:44:58PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008, Paul van Tilburg wrote:
>
>>> One oddity that I can see at the moment is that using :show-printable,
>>> the second column using your locale settings is showing things like \?FA,
>>> where the en_US.UTF-8 that I normally use is showing the Latin-1 code.
>>> (I expect the latter). I'll investigate that - it might be part of the
>>> problem.
>>
>> I seem them as \xFA. But that's probably because I opened the testfile and
>> vile
>> jumped to utf-8 mode.
>
> I see the explanation for the :show-printable - when running with
> file-encoding=utf-8, all of the buffers that aren't explicitly specified
> come out as utf-8. However, the show-printable data are really for 8-bit
> (narrow) locale, e.g., nl_NL.
I have file-encoding=utf-8 in my .vilerc, so when I do :show-printable
I see \?C1, etc. When I do :setl file-encoding=8bit in the Printable
Chars buffer, I get \xC1, etc.
> That jogs my mind a little here - an assumption built into the locale
> code that stripping ".UTF8" off will yield a "narrow" locale. But I
> seem to recall that it's an alias which usually but not always gives
> that result.
> Here's what I have in my /etc/locale.gen for nl_NL and en_US lines:
>
> nl_NL ISO-8859-1
> nl_NL.UTF-8 UTF-8
>
> en_US ISO-8859-1
> en_US.ISO-8859-15 ISO-8859-15
> en_US.UTF-8 UTF-8
Here is mine:
en_US.UTF-8 UTF-8
nl_NL.UTF-8 UTF-8
So maybe that's why the normal latin{1,9} stuff isn't working?
Paul
--
PhD Student @ Eindhoven | email: address@hidden
University of Technology, The Netherlands | JID: address@hidden
>>> Using the Power of Debian GNU/Linux <<< | GnuPG key ID: 0x50064181
- Re: [vile] vile-9.6j.patch.gz, (continued)
- Re: [vile] vile-9.6j.patch.gz, Paul van Tilburg, 2008/03/26
- Re: [vile] vile-9.6j.patch.gz, Thomas Dickey, 2008/03/26
- Re: [vile] vile-9.6j.patch.gz, Thomas Dickey, 2008/03/26
- Re: [vile] vile-9.6j.patch.gz, Paul van Tilburg, 2008/03/30
- Re: [vile] vile-9.6j.patch.gz, Thomas Dickey, 2008/03/30
- Re: [vile] vile-9.6j.patch.gz, Thomas Dickey, 2008/03/30
- Re: [vile] vile-9.6j.patch.gz, Paul van Tilburg, 2008/03/30
- Re: [vile] vile-9.6j.patch.gz, Thomas Dickey, 2008/03/30
- Re: [vile] vile-9.6j.patch.gz, Thomas Dickey, 2008/03/30
- Re: [vile] vile-9.6j.patch.gz,
Paul van Tilburg <=
- Re: [vile] vile-9.6j.patch.gz, Thomas Dickey, 2008/03/31
- Re: [vile] vile-9.6j.patch.gz, Paul van Tilburg, 2008/03/31
- Re: [vile] vile-9.6j.patch.gz, Thomas Dickey, 2008/03/31