[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: safe_call1 considered harmful
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: safe_call1 considered harmful |
Date: |
Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:49:29 +0300 |
> From: Kenichi Handa <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 20:34:16 +0900
>
> But, by considering this problem again, I found another
> solution than calling find-operation-coding-system with
> (FILENAME . BUFFER). That is to provide an extra argument
> BUFFER. Then, we can keep backward compatibility and
> find-buffer-file-type-coding-system works as before, and, by
> modifying po-find-file-coding-system to check that extra
> argument instead of checking if FILENAME is cons or not, we
> can make it work well too.
This will work if no function on file-coding-system-alist currently
looks at arguments beyond the 1st one, the file name. If there are
functions which look beyond that, such a change will break them.
While the chance of having such functions is very small, I don't see
how any significant change in the API could avoid breaking some
function that wasn't written to support the new API.
In any case, I think we should revert the change you made to use
safe_call1. Then we will quickly find any remaining functions that
need to be modified.
- safe_call1 considered harmful, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/07/21
- Re: safe_call1 considered harmful, Richard Stallman, 2006/07/21
- Re: safe_call1 considered harmful, Kenichi Handa, 2006/07/23
- Re: safe_call1 considered harmful, Richard Stallman, 2006/07/24
- Re: safe_call1 considered harmful, Kenichi Handa, 2006/07/30
- Re: safe_call1 considered harmful, Richard Stallman, 2006/07/31
- Re: safe_call1 considered harmful, Kenichi Handa, 2006/07/31
- Re: safe_call1 considered harmful, Richard Stallman, 2006/07/31