On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 07:32:18PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > If a user insists on configuring their terminal to use a encoding > > that cannot display all of the charecters in the charecter sets that > > they want to communicate in, things will break. > > I don't see why it will break (prove it!). This is not because some > character cannot be displayed that it cannot be handled internally. s/display/use/. It's already proved broken. Why do you want to submit a patch to Mutt for this issue? Answer: Because your configuration is broken, and you like it that way. Instead of fixing it the right way, you are stubbornly clinging to the idea that software that doesn't work the broken way you want it to should be hacked to be broken so your ridiculous configuration will work. Instead of switching to applications that work when the ones you prefer don't, make other apps that do work correctly broken, so that you don't have to do the right thing. How can you not see that this approach to the problem is asinine? This is precisely what led to the creation of Unicode in the first place! <sarcasm mode="heavy"> Your logic seems to be that, even though there already exists an elegant solution to your problem, it's better to hack every application in the known universe to be able to funnel data to arbitrary applications in arbitrary encodings which your system is not configured to use, because doing it the right way might force you to learn something new, or *worse yet* prove conclusively that you've been wrong all along about things being broken after all. And we can't have that now, can we? </sarcasm> -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Attachment:
pgpEDWdHzbNwc.pgp
Description: PGP signature