Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 01:27:03 -0800 (PST)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> Cc: per@starback.se, jwiegley@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> > > Whether it is formally defined or not does not answer the
> > > question about the name to use for Emacs users.
> > 
> > "Character folding" is the accepted terminology for this, we didn't
> > invent it.  Likewise "character sequence equivalence".
> 
> I've already agreed (from the beginning) that "character
> folding" is the right term for Emacs to use.  And that
> speaking of character equivalences is also appropriate.
> 
> (There has been some talk of adding multi-character string
> equivalences, but even if we match strings instead of just
> chars, speaking of "character foldings" makes sense to me.)

Yes, multi-character string equivalences are supported.

> I mentioned "ad hoc" character equivalences because I didn't
> think that the quotation-mark equivalences we've added are
> included in any of the Unicode equivalences (whether
> "canonically equivalent" or "compatible").

Indeed, we added equivalences for quote characters that are not
defined by Unicode database.  I think that these equivalences should
just be the initial value for the user-customizable part of the
feature.  And I don't think these few additions justify new
terminology, the existing one still describes even that.