From xemacs-m  Thu Jul  3 10:53:11 1997
Received: from iria.mines.u-nancy.fr (galibert@iria.mines.u-nancy.fr [193.49.140.100])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA28682
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 10:53:08 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from galibert@localhost) by iria.mines.u-nancy.fr (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) id RAA14153; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 17:51:59 +0200
Message-ID: <19970703175159.36735@iria.mines.u-nancy.fr>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 17:51:59 +0200
From: Olivier Galibert <Olivier.Galibert@mines.u-nancy.fr>
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Subject: Re: More on Ebola
References: <199707022247.SAA16133@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> <m24tad2cod.fsf@altair.xemacs.org> <19970703090625.60839@iria.mines.u-nancy.fr> <199707031536.LAA15642@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.78
In-Reply-To: <199707031536.LAA15642@black-ice.cc.vt.edu>; from Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu on Thu, Jul 03, 1997 at 11:36:42AM -0400

On Thu, Jul 03, 1997 at 11:36:42AM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> Hint: what's the *actual* prototype for getchar(), and the *actual* value
> of EOF? ;)
int and implementation dependant. But this implies xemacs/iso8859-1 considers
that at lisp level characters are bytes which is an information I didn't
have yet nor was obvious.


> DOn't suggest we use a "not possible in MULE" bitpattern - I once tried to
> run XEmacs 20.1 or so in a Latvian UTF-8 environment, and the results were
> NOT pretty. ;)
Whether something is possible and whether it would be a good thing to do are
most of the time totally unrelated problems. What Garry wanted was in fact
an EOB value of type character and I was wondering about the technical
feasability of that.

  OG.

