Ar an t-aonú lá is triochad de mí Bealtaine, scríobh Stephen J. Turnbull:
> I would be surprised if any Linux distribution does still use 7bit
> as default?
Agreed, but in that case I would imagine 8-bit characters are more
likely to be meta characters than non-ASCII, and there's no way to
determine what they are anyway.
I don’t think there’s any particular reason to believe that 8-bit characters
are more likely to be meta characters than non-ASCII in that context; the
eight-bit encodings, and in particular ISO-8859-1, are very very much
established in every operating system in wide use. This wasn’t the case in
1985 or even 1990, sure, and given that the design decision made sense, but
it is the case today.
> Thinking about it seems like current behaviour is somewhat
> if something as innocent as pasting a compiler warning may result in
> unexpected commands beeing executed.
I suspect that people using XEmacs in a terminal are likely to be
using compile or shell mode for compilation, in which case the paste
is actually a yank from the kill ring.
For an individual counterexample, most of my XEmacs-in-a-terminal work is on
remote servers, especially doing web development, where the content is often
Unicode, and there is value in being able to paste things from my local
machine and not have encodings trashed.
> Otoh I do not think that many people expect the true meta key
> in a terminal.
I suspect that a lot of people over the age of, say, 45 do.
It's worth being conservative about defaults; changing them is likely
to really annoy a lot of people.
For the record, this default has annoyed me for as long as I’ve been aware
of its existence.
“Apart from the nine-banded armadillo, man is the only natural host of
Mycobacterium leprae, although it can be grown in the footpads of mice.”
-- Kumar & Clark, Clinical Medicine, summarising improbable leprosy research
XEmacs-Beta mailing list