Re: lookup.jl google and koi8-r

[Ewan Mellor <sawfish ewanmellor org uk>]

On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 12:27:00PM +0300, Vladimir Zolotykh wrote:

> I've got a couple of simple questions about Sawfish and its Lisp
> usage.
> 
> If I need a module, say lookup.jl I should
> 
>   (require 'lookup)
> 
> However, if I realize that the functionality provided by LOOKUP needs
> some correction I open lookup.jl in an editor and make any
> modification required. Now how I could tell Sawfish about the changes?
> Or to reload the module lookup? At least 
> 
>   (require 'lookup) 
> 
> seems doesn't work. Restarting Sawfish entirely? e.g. quitting
> X-session and starting it again? (The REQUIRE command is in my
> ~/.sawfishrc file). Is there a more convenient solution?

Hi Vladimir,

It's nice to know that someone's using lookup.jl ;-)

The command you want is

,reload lookup

inside sawfish-client

> 
> Does any documentation about PROMPT-FOR-STRING from
> sawfish.wm.util.prompt exist anywhere? What code page does
> PROMPT-FOR-STRING use for it's result? lookup.jl
> (http://www.ewanmellor.org.uk/sawfish.html) uses PROMPT-FOR-STRING,
> however, when I try something like
> 
>   (lookup "google" t nil)
> 
> and type Russian (koi8-r) word to the appearing prompt I got a
> 
>   Your search - ??????? ???? - did not match any documents.
> 
> waring in the web-browser Google's page. Of course if I type the same
> search word in the web-browser (I'm using Mozilla-firefox), I get
> plenty of results, and the search word doesn't at all look like that
> funny character in the Google's excuse about "not match".
> 
> When I call 
> 
>   (prompt-for-string "Foo:")
> 
> in sawfish-client and type the same koi8-r word as before I get
> 
>   user> (prompt-for-string "FOO:")
>   "\301\302\327\307\304\305\326"
>   user> 
> 
> What arrangements must be made to pass it properly to Google, causing
> Google to interpret it as koi8-r word, not as don't-now-what ?

Which koi8 word did you type here?  I don't know, but I'd guess that if those
aren't koi8 bytes then they are the UTF-8 equivalents instead.  I'm sure that
with a little help from someone who uses non-latin encodings we could get the
transcoding sorted out.

Ewan.