Geoff Kuenning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >From my point of view, both options are bad. The first requires too > much intelligence on the part of ispell.el. The second is going to be > hard to enforce. > > Opinions are welcomed.
IMHO, intelligence should properly reside in ispell.el since emacs has all the infrastructure to (dis)ambiguate associations between codings and other aspects, and since en/decoding occurs on i/o. if something is hard to enforce that just means you need to have intelligence in the heuristics that comprise the workarounds in the error handling (or, omitting this, suffer a buggy ispell experience). that doesn't seem like much fun to program. better to make clients sweat the specifications than the non-specifications. thi _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
