Re: New implementation of pseudo console support (experimental)

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi Thomas,

On Mon, 31 Aug 2020, Thomas Wolff wrote:

> Am 31.08.2020 um 21:17 schrieb Johannes Schindelin:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > But that does _not_ reinstate the previous behavior when Pseudo
> > Console support is disabled.
> >
> > Now, I would call that a regression (the entire idea of `disable_pcon`
> > was to fall back to the previous behavior, no?). And I do not really
> > understand where it comes from, that regression.
>
> I wouldn't quite call it a regression as it disables buggy behaviour
> which was used as a workaround for a buggy system environment. But
> arguably you could expect such an option to fall back to previous buggy
> behaviour.

I think I got it. After you called this kind of application buggy for a
dozen times, I think I finally understood. You think they are buggy!

And while you sink into your comfy chair, thinking that you settled the
issue, in reality it is not settled at all. Arguing whether it is correct
for an application not to call `SetConsoleOutputCP()` does not help
anyone. Just because the behavior is considered undefined does not mean
that we should make the situation _intentionally_ worse.

That is, if we can get back to a spot where the (yes, buggy, buggy,
BUGGY!) applications behave in at least roughly the same way as before,
users will be much better off.

The work-around could be e.g. what I suggested in my reply to Corinna (and
which is the equivalent of what you suggested -- "just run chcp once" --
just without putting the burden on the users' shoulders, by calling
`SetConsoleOutputCP()` in the runtime, once).

In any case, my question why `disable_pcon` still uses the console output
code page was directed more at Takashi than you (or anybody else familiar
with that code path).

Ciao,
Johannes