Hrvoje> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp&gt; writes: Hrvoje> That would be a bad idea, I think. There could be code Hrvoje> that assumes that stuff in [0, 256) range is Latin 1, or Hrvoje> that internal representation is independent of the Hrvoje> selected environment. Good. Let's smoke those bad assumptions out. Ebola Redux! :-) Of course I'm only about 10% serious. But I think this is on the agenda anyway. I see no good reason why Latin-1 should be privileged once we get the 1-byte buffer stuff working, and a very good reason why it shouldn't be (subtle bugs). In fact, putting the default interpretation of ?\xA1 under user control is _exactly_ the point of the 1-byte buffers. To my mind, the real question may very well be timing. Do we implement the 1-byte buffers first, and then try to flush out the Latin-1 assumptions hidden throughout (possibly, anyway) the code? Or do we make Latin-2 the default, and flush out those assumptions in an environment that will provide lots more opportunities to go wrong? Hrvoje> Because it can be useful at times. Please be explicit. My point is precisely that the only use I can see for it is trying to find new ways to crash XEmacs. All of the sensible usages I can think of are perfectly well served by `make-char', perhaps preceded by `make-charset'. -- University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091 __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ What are those two straight lines for? "Free software rules."