From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Sep 29 10:05:08 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA16461 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 10:05:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de [141.76.1.11]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA16377 for ; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 10:04:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sax.sax.de (sax.sax.de [193.175.26.33]) by irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with ESMTP id TAA05723 for ; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 19:04:52 +0200 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id TAA02764 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 19:04:51 +0200 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.7.5/8.6.9) id SAA07938 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Sun, 29 Sep 1996 18:54:48 +0200 (MET DST) From: J Wunsch Message-Id: <199609291654.SAA07938@uriah.heep.sax.de> Subject: Re: setlocale question To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD hackers) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 18:54:48 +0200 (MET DST) Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) In-Reply-To: <199609291605.TAA00468@nagual.ru> from "[?KOI8-R?]" at "Sep 29, 96 07:05:58 pm" X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL17 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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. ;-)