From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#24510: 25.1; Info: searching for ` does not find what looks like ` Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:47:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3b1a716d-65e5-4eaa-912d-8d0471feb403@default> References: <<<6905ca6f-0573-4a2b-b346-d5df47862e09@default>>> <<<83intneq2g.fsf@gnu.org>>> <<<7f9c8f95-a04d-4e94-9c17-8a348bf89215@default>>> <<<83d1jvds1t.fsf@gnu.org>>> <> <<83mviycxse.fsf@gnu.org>> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1474667302 15951 195.159.176.226 (23 Sep 2016 21:48:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 21:48:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 24510@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii , Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 23 23:48:18 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bnYKO-0003WL-Aw for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 23:48:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51864 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bnYKM-0002Ho-NL for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:48:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36637) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bnYKD-0002GO-Ea for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:48:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bnYKA-0004wp-6S for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:48:05 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:55792) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bnYKA-0004wZ-3b for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:48:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bnYK9-0004Ox-OC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:48:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 21:48:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 24510 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 24510-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B24510.147466724816877 (code B ref 24510); Fri, 23 Sep 2016 21:48:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 24510) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Sep 2016 21:47:28 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33749 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bnYJc-0004O9-1O for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:47:28 -0400 Original-Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:18951) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bnYJZ-0004Nv-Ua for 24510@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 17:47:26 -0400 Original-Received: from userv0022.oracle.com (userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id u8NLlJLI022765 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 23 Sep 2016 21:47:19 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by userv0022.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u8NLlGnZ023773 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 23 Sep 2016 21:47:16 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0006.oracle.com (abhmp0006.oracle.com [141.146.116.12]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u8NLlD0D007249; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 21:47:15 GMT In-Reply-To: <<83mviycxse.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6753.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:123617 Archived-At: > > Why do you insist on saying things like "none of us, > > including yourself, have actually witnessed it?" >=20 > Because you yourself just said that the characters look > different to you. No. I said clearly that they can easily be mistaken for each other, even though it is true that they are not _exactly_ the same visually: See attached screenshot. No, they are not EXACTLY the same. But a user who is used to searching for ` (from the backquote key) in such a context can easily think that it IS the same character. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ S?he can easily either think (1) that the text s?he (thought s?he was) searching for is not present (e.g., if s?he does not see it) or (2) that Isearch is not working properly for some reason. And I said clearly, in the message before that one: They look slightly different, yes. Barely noticeable when ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ you see them side by side (see screenshot). Barely noticeable EVEN when you see them side by side. That was my judgment then, and I'm sticking to it now. But otherwise not noticeable enough that someone used to Emacs ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ < 25.1 would expect that the ` s?he types (as s?he always has, for this) does not result in the same character s?he sees as a name left delimiter. And I fell upon this bug by accident, when I tried to do what the bug recipe describes, with emacs -Q: search for "`list" in a topic where that text occurs, but with a left single quotation mark instead of `. It's a real report of a real experience, with emacs -Q. You keep trying to show that there is no problem by referring to the fact that I myself usually use Emacs with a different font. But this is not about me. It's about the default behavior of Emacs. I included the screenshot so that you and others can easily see for yourselves how much the two chars resemble each other. OK, so you disagree that they do. To you it is crystal clear that they are not the same, and you cannot imagine that anyone could see things differently. For you, I'm making this all up just to bother you, perhaps? Am I the only one who sees these characters as similar in appearance, and easy to mistake, one for the other? Dunno. But no one need take my word for the appearance, at least. The screenshot is there for anyone to check and come to their own conclusion. > > > Weren't you one of those who lobbied for turning the character-foldin= g > > > off by default? If it were not for that lobbying, your search would > > > have succeeded. > > > > No. And there was no such "lobbying", by anyone. Can you point > > to any post by me, in the long and deep discussion about this on > > emacs-devel ("On language-dependent defaults for character-folding") > > where I did that? >=20 > You just did it yourself, so I can rest my case. Is this really the way you try to reason, and discuss something? You apparently cannot show that I lobbied for turning char folding off by default, so you resort to claiming that I have argued that just now? Where? Are you perhaps watching too much Trump these days? In fact, I stated clearly in this thread that turning it on, at least for quotation, could be one of the possible fixes for this bug. My position on the default has been, from the beginning (in case you are really interested, though it is _irrelevant_ for this bug report), is that the default behavior is not very important. And that what is more important is that users (1) be able to easily customize the behavior, (2) be able to toggle it during isearch, and (3) be told about it in clear terms (especially if the default behavior represents a change), in both the doc and the NEWS. THAT was my point of view during the default discussion. And it has not changed. However, now that I have come across this usability bug, I think the bug should be fixed. But the default behavior is still less important that what I argued for. IF you choose to fix the bug by changing the default behavior for folding quotes, that will be better, I think, than not fixing it. I'm hoping that there might be a better fix available. I'm hoping that someone will come up with something good. But you've rejected the only other one I've come up with: change the default font, to avoid the similarity of appearance. > > And why would it be important if I had? Are you trying to > > mete out punishment, saying that it is my fault that Emacs > > now presents, by default, a visual confusion of single-quoting? >=20 > I'm saying that yours are double standards. Show us, please. What _are_ you talking about? Better yet, please address the bug, and not just attack the messenger. > > > The look quite different to me (my system uses the same font), > > > > You _know_ they are different. Please look again at the screenshot > > I sent, and imagine that it does not include the window showing the > > two right next to each other, so you see what a user sees when s?he > > searches for `. >=20 > I did. They still look different. OK. Clearly you have good eyes. But even with your good eyes you cannot see that someone (else) could easily mistake one for the other? Especially since s?he has long been able to search for quoted names using `? You can't see a problem here for others, even if you yourself have no such problem? > > > I'm not dismissing the problem. I'm saying that I don't see a > > > solution except through user customizations. Searching for similarly > > > looking characters is not specific to Info, it can happen elsewhere. > > > Users who bump into that frequently should customize their fonts > > > and/or turn on character-folding in search commands. > > > > That's not a solution for the default behavior, which is what > > this bug is about. If that is what you propose to solve the > > problem here then you are indeed dismissing the problem. >=20 > Customizations exist in Emacs for a reason. Saying that every problem > must be solved in "emacs -Q" is absurd, especially for minor problems > such as this one, with 2 characters that look differently. Another straw-man argument. Did someone argue that every problem must be solved in "emacs -Q"? No, of course not. > > Two possible solutions have been suggested in this thread, so far: > > > > 1) Emacs can try to avoid using Courier New as the default font. >=20 > Not an option. Other fonts have much less coverage, and most of them > are much uglier. You may wish looking at them before you suggest > this. I'm no expert on fonts. Are you speaking authoritatively, about ALL other fonts, when you say "other fonts"? I can't argue about coverage (I don't use RTL or many non-English characters, personally). And I won't try to argue about what is ugly or not. For English, I can offer the font I use as one that I find useful for MS Windows, FWIW: Lucida Console. I don't claim that it could or should be adopted by Emacs. Do we have a prioritized list of the important qualities of a default font for Emacs? How important is "coverage", and just what do we mean by it? How important is visual distinction/confusion of characters (including letters vs numbers)? Again, the default font is not the most important thing. It need not be perfect. But it can help or hinder understanding of Emacs, including by searching for information. > > 2. Isearch can fold "single-quote" chars (i.e., chars that could > > be confused in this regard), by default. >=20 > I'm okay with that, but my opinions on that were overruled. >=20 > > Please note, BTW, that I have _not_ opposed #2, just as I did > > _not_ "lobby for turning the character-folding off by default" > > during the general emacs-devel discussion. >=20 > Sure, you did. You just prefer to deny it now. See above. Including my citing #2, from the beginning, as one possible fix for this bug. And note your lack of finding any post by me where I lobbied to turn off folding by default. And I spent time looking through the thread, to see what people, including you and me, actually said there. Please put some evidence where your claims are. Or is it perhaps that you were alone in being _adamant_ about turning it on by default, so that even those who were on the fence about the default behavior have now been put on your enemies list and must be thoroughly castigated? > > What's not helpful is dismissing the problem or casting > > blame for it. >=20 > I agree. Do you realize that this is what you are doing? Uh, how so, Eli? Have I blamed you for this bug? No way. You, on the other hand _have_: * dismissed the problem, saying that there can be no difficulty distinguishing the characters. * blamed me for the default search behavior of not character-folding.