Re: Why do we keep mule-coding.c around ?
SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Andy Piper <andyp(a)parallax.co.uk> writes:
> At 09:07 15/07/98 -0400, you wrote:
>> Speaking of file-coding, is there a reason the option is not listed by
>> ./configure --help?
No. Undoubtedly that's an oversight.
>> Is there any reason not to use it for a non-mule build?
No one has investigated the performance implications.
Also, noone has investigated the usage problems. I, for once, don't
like the `noconv' stuff in the modeline. Likewise, I don't *want*
CRLF to be "autodetected" behind my back (at least not without some
thought). Etc etc. Let's remember that file-coding emerged as an
integral part of the Mule functionality, which is still a matter of
some controversy.
> There have been reports of crashes that I have never been able
to
> reproduce and which I suspect are triggered by file-coding and not
> caused by it.
I can't parse this statement.
Let me try to pretty-print a parsed version:
There have been reports of crashes triggered by compiling in the
file-coding support, but not caused by file-coding-specific parts
of code. I [Andy] have never been able to reproduce these
crashes.
--
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
Your lucky number today is 29842924728. Look for it everywhere.