Re: [haskell-mode] Work around coding cookie breakage
Joachim Schrod <jschrod(a)acm.org> writes:
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>
> Or maybe this is a prophetic warning: we should just get rid of
> no-Mule, despite the complaints we'll get from a few Western Europeans
> and anybody who depends on high performance in true binary modes. :-)
Even though I'm not a developer and only a lurker, I'd like to add my
0.02 EUR:
AFAIU, UTF-8 support is only available in Mule, as long as the Great
Rewrite To Internal Unicode has not happened. And no future release of
XEmacs should go out without UTF-8 support. Therefore, I would have
thought that getting rid of no-Mule is unavoidable.
To add a bit of history: the last non-trivial migration wave from
Emacs to XEmacs that I remember was when somewhere in Emacs 20, MULE
became obligatory. At that point of time, most people were using
8-bit locales (with the exception of some Far East countries mostly
into JIS-something, BIG5-or other and similar encodings). MULE was
mostly considered an abomination taking performance and causing
complications. So many people hating MULE with a bellicose vengeance
switched to XEmacs, and the rest scrambled to make life in Emacs with
MULE more or less bearable.
The tables have turned, but XEmacs is still the haven of the MULE
haters. If they don't get the choice of not using MULE at all,
they'll probably turn to the least painful MULE implementation that is
available. And I don't think that, for a while to come, this would
mean XEmacs.
The question is whether those that really want non-MULE are both
numerous and verbose enough to be worth catering for. For Emacs, the
answer is definitely "no", but then the demographics might be
different.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta