* bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
@ 2014-07-15 7:57 Daimrod
2014-07-21 15:06 ` Daimrod
2014-07-21 18:33 ` Stefan Monnier
0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Daimrod @ 2014-07-15 7:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 18023
[-- 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
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
2014-07-15 7:57 bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method Daimrod
@ 2014-07-21 15:06 ` Daimrod
2014-07-21 18:33 ` Stefan Monnier
1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Daimrod @ 2014-07-21 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 18023
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
2014-07-15 7:57 bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method Daimrod
2014-07-21 15:06 ` Daimrod
@ 2014-07-21 18:33 ` Stefan Monnier
2014-07-21 18:38 ` Eli Zaretskii
2014-07-24 14:09 ` K. Handa
1 sibling, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Stefan Monnier @ 2014-07-21 18:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daimrod; +Cc: 18023
> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
2014-07-21 18:33 ` Stefan Monnier
@ 2014-07-21 18:38 ` Eli Zaretskii
2014-07-22 0:28 ` Daimrod
2014-07-24 14:09 ` K. Handa
1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2014-07-21 18:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Monnier; +Cc: 18023
> 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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
2014-07-21 18:38 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2014-07-22 0:28 ` Daimrod
2014-07-22 3:47 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Daimrod @ 2014-07-22 0:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: 18023
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
2014-07-22 0:28 ` Daimrod
@ 2014-07-22 3:47 ` Eli Zaretskii
2014-07-22 4:38 ` Daimrod
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2014-07-22 3:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daimrod; +Cc: 18023
> 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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
2014-07-22 3:47 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2014-07-22 4:38 ` Daimrod
2014-07-25 8:12 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Daimrod @ 2014-07-22 4:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: 18023
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
2014-07-22 4:38 ` Daimrod
@ 2014-07-25 8:12 ` Eli Zaretskii
2014-07-26 2:26 ` Daimrod
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2014-07-25 8:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daimrod; +Cc: 18023
> 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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
2014-07-25 8:12 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2014-07-26 2:26 ` Daimrod
2014-08-04 17:45 ` Daimrod
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Daimrod @ 2014-07-26 2:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: 18023
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
2014-07-26 2:26 ` Daimrod
@ 2014-08-04 17:45 ` Daimrod
2014-08-11 0:44 ` Glenn Morris
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Daimrod @ 2014-08-04 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: 18023
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
2014-07-21 18:33 ` Stefan Monnier
2014-07-21 18:38 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2014-07-24 14:09 ` K. Handa
1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: K. Handa @ 2014-07-24 14:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stefan Monnier; +Cc: 18023
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-08-11 12:20 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-07-15 7:57 bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method Daimrod
2014-07-21 15:06 ` Daimrod
2014-07-21 18:33 ` Stefan Monnier
2014-07-21 18:38 ` Eli Zaretskii
2014-07-22 0:28 ` Daimrod
2014-07-22 3:47 ` Eli Zaretskii
2014-07-22 4:38 ` Daimrod
2014-07-25 8:12 ` Eli Zaretskii
2014-07-26 2:26 ` Daimrod
2014-08-04 17:45 ` Daimrod
2014-08-11 0:44 ` Glenn Morris
2014-08-11 12:20 ` Daimrod
2014-07-24 14:09 ` K. Handa
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).