Hello Nicolas, Did you have time to review the patches ?
pierre.techouey...@free.fr (Pierre Téchoueyres) writes: > Hello, > Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes: > >> Hello, >> >> pierre.techouey...@free.fr (Pierre Téchoueyres) writes: >> >>> I think I've corrected all points. You'll find new versions attached. >> >> Thank you. >> >>> Would you mind consider to include the patch for the detection of >>> encoding with the #+include keyword in 9.2 release ? >> >> This patch is still missing some small parts for proper integration, >> namely documentation, and, if possible, a couple of tests. Besides, 9.2 >> branch is supposedly frozen. > > I argree for the documentation and tests (but I have to admit I don't > know how to add them). > >> Granted, it doesn't seem too harmful, but is there any strong reason to >> integrate it in Org 9.2 (assuming documentation is ready)? > > > I think I wasn't clear enough : I had hope you will only include the > part which correct the decoding of include keyword, not the whole two > patchs. I think the former is simply a bug fixes. > > >> >>> + (coding >>> + (intern (or (and (string-match >>> + >>> ":coding[[:space:]]+\\_<\\(\\(?:\\sw\\|\\$\\|&\\|\\*\\|\\+\\|-\\|_\\|<\\|>\\)+\\)\\_>" >>> value) >>> + (prog1 (match-string 1 value) >>> + (setq value (replace-match "" nil nil >>> value)))) >>> + (symbol-name coding-system-for-read)))) >> >> I suggested a refactoring that you didn't integrate: it seems wasteful >> to call `intern' on the return value of `symbol-name'. >> >> Besides, my suggestion about the regexp was wrong. We shouldn't make the >> syntax foolproof. I think >> >> ":coding +\\(\\S-+\\)" >> >> is enough actually. Sorry about sending you in the wrong track. >> >> Regards, > > Here is a new amended patch. > > > > > Regards,
