bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method

bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method

[Daimrod]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 144 bytes --]

This patch permits the user to type " _" using the latin-postfix input
method. ATM the user has to use the following sequence:
`SPC SPC DEL _'


[-- Attachment #2: 0001-lisp-leim-quail-latin-post.el-latin-postfix-Add-miss.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 780 bytes --]

From 44827e32f099e8090c87e07893e34079cfc8130e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Gr=C3=A9goire=20Jadi?= <gregoire.jadi@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:51:44 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] * lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el (latin-postfix): Add missing
 fallback

Transform " __" into " _".
---
 lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el b/lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el
index c72c459..a4bb85e 100644
--- a/lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el
+++ b/lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el
@@ -2299,6 +2299,7 @@ Doubling the postfix separates the letter and postfix: e.g. a'' -> a'
  ("z." ?ż)
  ("z~" ?ž)
 
+ (" __" [" _"])
  ("!//" ["!/"])
  ("///" ["//"])
  ("<<<" ["<<"])
-- 
1.8.0.2722.gc0242e5


[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 18 bytes --]


-- 
Daimrod/Greg

bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method

[Daimrod]

Daimrod <daimrod@gmail.com> writes:

Bump.

Any comments on this?

> This patch permits the user to type " _" using the latin-postfix input
> method. ATM the user has to use the following sequence:
> `SPC SPC DEL _'
>
>
> From 44827e32f099e8090c87e07893e34079cfc8130e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: =?UTF-8?q?Gr=C3=A9goire=20Jadi?= <gregoire.jadi@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:51:44 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] * lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el (latin-postfix): Add missing
>  fallback
>
> Transform " __" into " _".
> ---
>  lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el b/lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el
> index c72c459..a4bb85e 100644
> --- a/lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el
> +++ b/lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el
> @@ -2299,6 +2299,7 @@ Doubling the postfix separates the letter and postfix: e.g. a'' -> a'
>   ("z." ?ż)
>   ("z~" ?ž)
>  
> + (" __" [" _"])
>   ("!//" ["!/"])
>   ("///" ["//"])
>   ("<<<" ["<<"])
> -- 
> 1.8.0.2722.gc0242e5

-- 
Daimrod/Greg

bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method

[Stefan Monnier]

> This patch permits the user to type " _" using the latin-postfix input
> method. ATM the user has to use the following sequence:
> `SPC SPC DEL _'

I have no objection to the patch, but don't have time to evaluate it
(I'm travelling and only have occasionally Internet access).


        Stefan

bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:33:44 -0400
> Cc: 18023@debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > This patch permits the user to type " _" using the latin-postfix input
> > method. ATM the user has to use the following sequence:
> > `SPC SPC DEL _'
> 
> I have no objection to the patch, but don't have time to evaluate it
> (I'm travelling and only have occasionally Internet access).

FWIW, it strikes me that "C-q _" is less typing.

bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method

[Daimrod]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
>> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:33:44 -0400
>> Cc: 18023@debbugs.gnu.org
>> 
>> > This patch permits the user to type " _" using the latin-postfix input
>> > method. ATM the user has to use the following sequence:
>> > `SPC SPC DEL _'
>> 
>> I have no objection to the patch, but don't have time to evaluate it
>> (I'm travelling and only have occasionally Internet access).
>
> FWIW, it strikes me that "C-q _" is less typing.

It's not consistent and it doesn't really save typing:
- "SPC _ _"
- "SPC C-q _"

--
Daimrod/Greg

bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Daimrod <daimrod@gmail.com>
> Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>,  18023@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:28:26 +0900
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> >> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:33:44 -0400
> >> Cc: 18023@debbugs.gnu.org
> >> 
> >> > This patch permits the user to type " _" using the latin-postfix input
> >> > method. ATM the user has to use the following sequence:
> >> > `SPC SPC DEL _'
> >> 
> >> I have no objection to the patch, but don't have time to evaluate it
> >> (I'm travelling and only have occasionally Internet access).
> >
> > FWIW, it strikes me that "C-q _" is less typing.
> 
> It's not consistent and it doesn't really save typing:
> - "SPC _ _"
> - "SPC C-q _"

I meant "SPC SPC DEL _".  As for "SPC _ _", it's of the same length,
so it doesn't save typing, either.

bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method

[Daimrod]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Daimrod <daimrod@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>,  18023@debbugs.gnu.org
>> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:28:26 +0900
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> >> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
>> >> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:33:44 -0400
>> >> Cc: 18023@debbugs.gnu.org
>> >> 
>> >> > This patch permits the user to type " _" using the latin-postfix input
>> >> > method. ATM the user has to use the following sequence:
>> >> > `SPC SPC DEL _'
>> >> 
>> >> I have no objection to the patch, but don't have time to evaluate it
>> >> (I'm travelling and only have occasionally Internet access).
>> >
>> > FWIW, it strikes me that "C-q _" is less typing.
>> 
>> It's not consistent and it doesn't really save typing:
>> - "SPC _ _"
>> - "SPC C-q _"
>
> I meant "SPC SPC DEL _".  As for "SPC _ _", it's of the same length,
> so it doesn't save typing, either.

It wasn't clear in my initial message so it's my fault. In my patch, I
update the latin-postfix input-method so that one can type "SPC _ _"
instead of "SPC SPC DEL _".

Though I agree that it doesn't save typing compared to the method you
proposed, my approach saves typing compared to the current method and I
find my method faster to type because it's consistent with the other
combinations and it doesn't "break the flow".

-- 
Daimrod/Greg

bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method

[K. Handa]

In article <jwv1ttea7gd.fsf-monnier+emacsbugs@gnu.org>, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> > This patch permits the user to type " _" using the latin-postfix input
> > method. ATM the user has to use the following sequence:
> > `SPC SPC DEL _'

> I have no objection to the patch, but don't have time to evaluate it
> (I'm travelling and only have occasionally Internet access).

I agree with the patch because it provides the consistent
behavor of that input method; i.e. when latin-post converts
the typing of "xy" to "z", you can insert "xy" by typing
"xyy" without deactivating the input method.

---
Kenichi Handa
handa@gnu.org

bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Daimrod <daimrod@gmail.com>
> Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca,  18023@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:38:29 +0900
> 
> >> > FWIW, it strikes me that "C-q _" is less typing.
> >> 
> >> It's not consistent and it doesn't really save typing:
> >> - "SPC _ _"
> >> - "SPC C-q _"
> >
> > I meant "SPC SPC DEL _".  As for "SPC _ _", it's of the same length,
> > so it doesn't save typing, either.
> 
> It wasn't clear in my initial message so it's my fault. In my patch, I
> update the latin-postfix input-method so that one can type "SPC _ _"
> instead of "SPC SPC DEL _".
> 
> Though I agree that it doesn't save typing compared to the method you
> proposed, my approach saves typing compared to the current method and I
> find my method faster to type because it's consistent with the other
> combinations and it doesn't "break the flow".

I don't necessarily object to the change, I just wanted to point out
that alternatives better than "SPC SPC DEL _" do exist.

bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method

[Daimrod]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Daimrod <daimrod@gmail.com>
>> Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca,  18023@debbugs.gnu.org
>> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:38:29 +0900
>> 
>> >> > FWIW, it strikes me that "C-q _" is less typing.
>> >> 
>> >> It's not consistent and it doesn't really save typing:
>> >> - "SPC _ _"
>> >> - "SPC C-q _"
>> >
>> > I meant "SPC SPC DEL _".  As for "SPC _ _", it's of the same length,
>> > so it doesn't save typing, either.
>> 
>> It wasn't clear in my initial message so it's my fault. In my patch, I
>> update the latin-postfix input-method so that one can type "SPC _ _"
>> instead of "SPC SPC DEL _".
>> 
>> Though I agree that it doesn't save typing compared to the method you
>> proposed, my approach saves typing compared to the current method and I
>> find my method faster to type because it's consistent with the other
>> combinations and it doesn't "break the flow".
>
> I don't necessarily object to the change, I just wanted to point out
> that alternatives better than "SPC SPC DEL _" do exist.

If everybody agrees, can it be merged?

My assignment number is #793656 though I don't think it is required for
such a tiny change.

Best,
-- 
Daimrod/Greg

bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method

[Daimrod]

Daimrod <daimrod@gmail.com> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> From: Daimrod <daimrod@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca,  18023@debbugs.gnu.org
>>> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:38:29 +0900
>>> 
>>> >> > FWIW, it strikes me that "C-q _" is less typing.
>>> >> 
>>> >> It's not consistent and it doesn't really save typing:
>>> >> - "SPC _ _"
>>> >> - "SPC C-q _"
>>> >
>>> > I meant "SPC SPC DEL _".  As for "SPC _ _", it's of the same length,
>>> > so it doesn't save typing, either.
>>> 
>>> It wasn't clear in my initial message so it's my fault. In my patch, I
>>> update the latin-postfix input-method so that one can type "SPC _ _"
>>> instead of "SPC SPC DEL _".
>>> 
>>> Though I agree that it doesn't save typing compared to the method you
>>> proposed, my approach saves typing compared to the current method and I
>>> find my method faster to type because it's consistent with the other
>>> combinations and it doesn't "break the flow".
>>
>> I don't necessarily object to the change, I just wanted to point out
>> that alternatives better than "SPC SPC DEL _" do exist.
>
> If everybody agrees, can it be merged?
>
> My assignment number is #793656 though I don't think it is required for
> such a tiny change.

ping?

--
Daimrod/Greg

bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method

[Glenn Morris]

Version: 24.5

Thanks; applied to trunk.

(I wish more of the ~ 200 people with write access would help with this
kind of thing.)

bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method

[Daimrod]

Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:

> Version: 24.5
>
> Thanks; applied to trunk.

Thanks!

> (I wish more of the ~ 200 people with write access would help with this
> kind of thing.)

-- 
Daimrod/Greg