Re: Inconsistencies regarding nil coding-system

[Kenichi Handa]

In article <address@hidden>, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

> Right.  But I don't see this as being relevant to the issue at hand:
> coding-system-for-read is explicitly advertised to treat the nil value
> specially.  IOW, with coding-system-for-read, nil is _not_ a coding
> system, it's a flag with a well documented meaning.

> In the context of this discussion, nil is relevant for variables and
> arguments that must have a valid coding-system as their value.  (We
> treat nil as "valid" coding-system only for practical purposes.)
> Variables like coding-system-for-read, coding-system-for-write,
> last-next-selection-coding-system, etc. are not in this group.

> And in any case, nil does _not_ mean no-conversion for these
> variables, either.

Sure.

> So, to summarize, how about if we change the interpretation of nil in
> this context to `undecided', on the trunk only?  If there are problems
> with that, we will have ample time to fix them, I think.

Ok, I agree.

---
Kenichi Handa
address@hidden