[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Emacs Lisp's future
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Emacs Lisp's future |
Date: |
Mon, 06 Oct 2014 19:34:34 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) |
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:
> It should do so as an option, with the alternative being to ask for
> confirmation (this would be automatically satisfied if input and
> output rawbytes handlers were separate) if nonconforming output would
> be produced. Emacs of *all* editors should not produce non-conforming
> output silently (unless explicitly silenced), even if it got
> non-conforming input.
That sounds like you are talking about a processing pipe. An editor is
not really the same. Even for something like sed I'd expect no changes
in parts that are, well, not changed. Much more so for a proper editor.
--
David Kastrup
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Mark H Weaver, 2014/10/06
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/10/06
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/06
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/10/06
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/10/06
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/10/06
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Richard Stallman, 2014/10/07
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/10/07
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/06
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Mark H Weaver, 2014/10/06
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/10/06
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/06
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, David Kastrup, 2014/10/06
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/10/06
Re: Emacs Lisp's future, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2014/10/06