Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le

[David Kastrup]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>>> For what it's worth, I do think it would make sense to try and move
>>> the BOM-processing outside of the coding-system proper.  For me a good
>>> test for coding-system-worthiness is "what if I use it for a process
>>> rather than a file".  Based on this test, I'm not sure if BOMs really
>>> fit in (other than for auto-detection and automatically stripping
>>> them, maybe).
>
>> Hm?  I don't see why starting communication with a BOM or not would
>> _not_ fit in.
>
> I don't think the notion of "start" is quite the same for process data
> as for files.
>
>>>> What I proposed was a more generic concept where use of signatures
>>>> and the EOL convention would (at least to the user) appear as
>>>> buffer-local variables.
>>> 
>>> Here, I disagree: EOL processing definitely need to take place when
>>> talking to subprocesses, so EOL-handling doesn't belong in
>>> buffer-local vars but in the coding-system.
>
>> I don't quite see the difference to BOM processing, even though the BOM
>> processing has to happen only once at the start.
>
> You mean, it's almost exactly the same, except it's completely
> different?  Then I agree,

"Start/end of line" and "Start of buffer/communication" is not
"completely different".  Likewise, "\\`" and "^" are not "completely
different" regular expressions.  They are different, yes, but less
different than a lot of other things.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum