From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#9571: 24.0.50; user option to turn off bidi, please Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:28:20 -0400 Message-ID: References: <8362kjsjsk.fsf@gnu.org> <83ty83qq3e.fsf@gnu.org> <83ehz7qbts.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1316867323 31421 80.91.229.12 (24 Sep 2011 12:28:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 12:28:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 9571@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 24 14:28:38 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R7RLS-0001yt-Jd for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:28:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54523 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R7RLR-0004qG-Up for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:28:37 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:58678) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R7RLO-0004kK-3r for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:28:35 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R7RLM-0002sh-MM for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:28:34 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:35609) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R7RLM-0002sc-JU for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:28:32 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R7RLs-0005rQ-4n for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:29:04 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Richard Stallman Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 12:29:04 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9571 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: wontfix Original-Received: via spool by 9571-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9571.131686734022504 (code B ref 9571); Sat, 24 Sep 2011 12:29:04 +0000 Original-Received: (at 9571) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Sep 2011 12:29:00 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R7RLo-0005qr-0d for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:29:00 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R7RLg-0005qO-IQ for 9571@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:28:55 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R7RLA-0008P2-6R; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:28:20 -0400 In-reply-to: <83ehz7qbts.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Fri, 23 Sep 2011 22:48:47 +0300) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:29:04 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:51774 Archived-At: > Why are you opposed to a flag to turn bidi display off? I explained that at length in followups. Those messages seem to be arguing against maintaining big changes to implement non-bidi display. I agree with that. But they don't seem to be an argument against simple code that would disable the recognition of the bidi specialness of characters. > If there are [no R2L characters], there is no > reordering, thus no possibility it can cause confusion. You are wrong: _all_ characters are displayed in Emacs 24 via the reordering engine. It's just that plain left-to-right text emerges from that reordering in its original buffer order. But the reordering engine doesn't "know" that, it just implements the rules of reordering. We are miscommunicating. When I say "no reordering", I'm not talking about what code is running -- just how the text gets displayed. When there are no R2L characters, the text will be displayed in L2R order, which means no reordering in the display. That will not resolve any confusion. As someone who happened to read R2L text in Emacs 23 (e.g., in email messages), I can assure you: seeing R2L text in buffer order confuses even more than seeing results of slightly incorrect reordering. It makes the reading process very slow and error prone, even if your command of the language is very good. That's an argument not to do your normal editing with such a mode. I only suggest we provide it as a way to check the order of characters in the buffer, when needed. It's not useful for users, believe me. It could be useful to someone who debugs Emacs display, but there's no need for user option for that use case. I am not sure what the best user interface would be. Perhaps a command to toggle the flag for the current buffer. Easier maintenance. Emacs display engine is already more complex that humanly perceptible. Having two divergent engines in one means unnecessarily complicating maintenance and slowing down development, I agree with you, but I am not arguing for having two engines. Only for having a flag. See the other message for how I suggest implementing it. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/