Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org> writes:
> Done along with comment that we follow emacs's implementation, not
> xemacs's.
Well, when the preceding comment block contains five references to
xemacs and the link for more information leads to www.xemacs.org,
I don't think it's real helpful to add one sentence saying "oh
by the way we're not actually following xemacs".
I continue to think that we'd be better off to follow the xemacs
spec, as the subdivisions the emacs spec is insisting on seem like
entirely useless complication. The only possible reason for doing
it the emacs way is that it would provide room for twice as many
charset IDs ... but the present design for wchar conversion destroys
that advantage, because it requires the charset ID spaces to be
nonoverlapping anyhow. Moreover, it's not apparent to me that
charset standards are still proliferating, so I doubt that we need
any more ID space.
regards, tom lane