[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: safe_call1 considered harmful
From: |
Kenichi Handa |
Subject: |
Re: safe_call1 considered harmful |
Date: |
Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:36:12 +0900 |
User-agent: |
SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.2 (Yagi-Nishiguchi) APEL/10.2 Emacs/22.0.50 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) |
In article <address@hidden>, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>> 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.
No, what I meant is to give the extra argument BUFFER at the
END of the normal arguments to insert-file-contents. So,
for instance, tar-extract will call
find-operation-coding-system as this:
(car (find-operation-coding-system
'insert-file-contents
name t nil nil nil (current-buffer)))
The new docstring (only the last paragraph) for
find-operation-coding-system will be:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[...]
If OPERATION is `insert-file-contents', there may be an extra argument
BUFFER at the end. In that case, FILENAME is a file name to look up,
and BUFFER is a buffer that contains the file's contents (not yet
decoded). If `file-coding-system-alist' specifies a function to call
for FILENAME, that function should examine the contents of BUFFER
instead of reading the file.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This change breaks only such a function that checks that the
number of given arguments is not greater than 5 (the maximum
arguments to insert-file-contents). I believe such a
function is very very rare.
> In any case, I think we should revert the change you made to use
> safe_call1.
Yes.
---
Kenichi Handa
address@hidden
- 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
- Re: safe_call1 considered harmful, Kenichi Handa, 2006/07/31