Re: [PATCH] Last assault on binary-process-output
Andy Piper <andy(a)xemacs.org> writes:
At 09:01 AM 1/28/00 +0100, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
>"Kirill 'Big K' Katsnelson" <kkm(a)dtmx.com> writes:
>
>> One correction, I am going to remove this variable by release time,
>> not obsolete it.
>
>Are you sure that's a good idea? Do you think there's code that
>depends on it?
>
>Maybe we could use the dontusethis- stuff to support it during the
>transition period.
I would like to see it go in its entirety so that we can remove the
C goop that goes with it.
That's why I think dontusethis- would come in handy: with it you can
(theoretically) convert (setq binary-process-output t) to mean
(setq coding-system-for-read 'binary). Then you can get rid of the C
goop, and yet have a transitional period of backward compatibility.
That's what how dontusethis- was meant to be used.