Re: per-buffer language environments

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Eli Zaretskii writes:

 >   . The issue is what it means to have a separate buffer-local
 >     "language environment".

Please, let's postpone this until Handa-san has some time to work on
it.

I have two comments to make to try to avoid misunderstanding later.

First, please note that what Werner needs has little or nothing to do
with this discussion of modifying the coding priority list.  Werner is
in the fairly small set of users for whom encoding selection is a
solved problem.  If Emacs gets it wrong, he knows what to do about it.

*His* problems are harder, and more deeply tied to language itself.
The current language environment mechanism is good at what it does and
will be somewhat improved by being made buffer-local, but to be really
useful to Werner a number of additional attributes need to be added,
as well as some functionality that I don't yet really know how to
implement (eg, his Romanian s-with-comma-below vs. s-cedilla issue).

Second, you wrote:

 > Since you have the logs to get you straight about the degree of my
 > knowledge in that issue, you should rather wonder whether I'm missing
 > your point because I misunderstood what you are saying or because you
 > failed to explain it clearly.

*sigh*  OK, then, let me make things perfectly clear.  I have so
wondered, but the words you have written make me believe that you have
a fundamental misunderstanding of how buffer-file-coding-system gets
set in Emacsen, and specifically you do not understand the role of the
priority lists.  Since the details matter (and I believe now differ
across the Emacsen), I recommend you look at the source rather than
have me explain.  But I'll tell you how the general scheme works in
XEmacs if you want, and later Handa-san can clarify any differences.