[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [vile] vile-9.6j.patch.gz

From: Paul van Tilburg
Subject: Re: [vile] vile-9.6j.patch.gz
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:32:27 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)


On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 08:44:58PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008, Paul van Tilburg wrote:
>>> One oddity that I can see at the moment is that using :show-printable,
>>> the second column using your locale settings is showing things like \?FA,
>>> where the en_US.UTF-8 that I normally use is showing the Latin-1 code.
>>> (I expect the latter).  I'll investigate that - it might be part of the
>>> problem.
>> I seem them as \xFA.  But that's probably because I opened the testfile and 
>> vile
>> jumped to utf-8 mode.
> I see the explanation for the :show-printable - when running with  
> file-encoding=utf-8, all of the buffers that aren't explicitly specified
> come out as utf-8.  However, the show-printable data are really for 8-bit
> (narrow) locale, e.g., nl_NL.

I have file-encoding=utf-8 in my .vilerc, so when I do :show-printable
I see \?C1, etc.  When I do :setl file-encoding=8bit in the Printable
Chars buffer, I get \xC1, etc.

> That jogs my mind a little here - an assumption built into the locale
> code that stripping ".UTF8" off will yield a "narrow" locale.  But I
> seem to recall that it's an alias which usually but not always gives
> that result.

> Here's what I have in my /etc/locale.gen for nl_NL and en_US lines:
> nl_NL ISO-8859-1
> nl_NL.UTF-8 UTF-8
> en_US ISO-8859-1
> en_US.ISO-8859-15 ISO-8859-15
> en_US.UTF-8 UTF-8

Here is mine:

en_US.UTF-8 UTF-8
nl_NL.UTF-8 UTF-8

So maybe that's why the normal latin{1,9} stuff isn't working?


PhD Student @ Eindhoven                     | email: address@hidden
University of Technology, The Netherlands   | JID: address@hidden
>>> Using the Power of Debian GNU/Linux <<< | GnuPG key ID: 0x50064181

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]