Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 18:54:48 +0200 (MET DST) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD hackers) Subject: Re: setlocale question Message-ID: <199609291654.SAA07938@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199609291605.TAA00468@nagual.ru> from "[?KOI8-R?]" at "Sep 29, 96 07:05:58 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As [?KOI8-R?] wrote: > > Since this will move it away from being ASCII-centric, it should > > perhaps also use \xxx notation for non-printable characters instead of > > this M-x crap. Alas, this would move us away from the other BSDs > > again. > IMHO, it will be better to preserve M-x notation to be compatible > with *vis/*unvis functions and other BSDs. The only problem is that non-ASCII locales could (in theory) have characters where !isprint() && !iscontrol() doesn't necessarily mean that bit 7 is set. Thus, the M-x transcription would be bogus. It is not very useful at all, \xxx is better understandable. (Are Americans really used to know which character M-c actually is?) OTOH, this is currently no problem (and most likely never will be?) since all the non-ASCII locales contain the entire ASCII set in the bottom half. The bigger problem is that IMHO, for ISO-8859-x, the characters in the range \200 thru \220 are also control characters, but they cannot simply be expressed by ^X notation (unless one considers something like ^Á a useful notation). What do other people (including the NetBSD guys listening here) think? -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609291654.SAA07938>