C-x 8 shorthands for ≤ and ≥

C-x 8 shorthands for ≤ and ≥

[Kaushal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 886 bytes --]

Hi Paul,

Added bindings for some of the frequently used unicode chars was a small
but welcome udpate (referrring to this commit:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/commit/?id=4b41540b424468aeca87b9b47ffda2be25c5dac4
)

I simply wanted to comment on these bindings:

("_<" . [?≤])
("_>" . [?≥])

Can the bindings be changed to these:

("<=" . [?≤])
(">=" . [?≥])


The reason is that we use ≤ when implementing "LESS than or EQUAL to (<=)"
comparision and ≥ when implementing "GREATER than or EQUAL to (>=)"
comparision.

So "<=" will probably be more intuitive than "_<" and same applies for ">="
and "_>".

I can of course create my own binding to do that and the bindings you have
are not difficult to remember.

But I thought of mentioning this as it's early enough to change the
bindings if you and others agree with my reasoning.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2500 bytes --]

Re: C-x 8 shorthands for ≤ and ≥

[Kaushal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1095 bytes --]

Oh well, nevermind,

">" is already bound to »
"<" is already boudn to «

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 9:22 AM Kaushal <kaushal.modi@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> Added bindings for some of the frequently used unicode chars was a small
> but welcome udpate (referrring to this commit:
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/commit/?id=4b41540b424468aeca87b9b47ffda2be25c5dac4
> )
>
> I simply wanted to comment on these bindings:
>
> ("_<" . [?≤])
> ("_>" . [?≥])
>
> Can the bindings be changed to these:
>
> ("<=" . [?≤])
> (">=" . [?≥])
>
>
> The reason is that we use ≤ when implementing "LESS than or EQUAL to (<=)"
> comparision and ≥ when implementing "GREATER than or EQUAL to (>=)"
> comparision.
>
> So "<=" will probably be more intuitive than "_<" and same applies for
> ">=" and "_>".
>
> I can of course create my own binding to do that and the bindings you have
> are not difficult to remember.
>
> But I thought of mentioning this as it's early enough to change the
> bindings if you and others agree with my reasoning.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2891 bytes --]

Re: C-x 8 shorthands for ≤ and ≥

[Stefan Monnier]

>>   ("_<" . [?≤])
>>   ("_>" . [?≥])
>> Can the bindings be changed to these:
>>   ("<=" . [?≤])
>>   (">=" . [?≥])

FWIW, I agree.

> ">" is already bound to »
> "<" is already boudn to «

">>" and "<<" would seem to be better choices.
The shorter `C-x <' used so far made sense when we restricted C-x 8 to
something like Latin-1, but if we want to extend coverage, I don't think
we can afford such short bindings.


        Stefan

Re: C-x 8 shorthands for ≤ and ≥

[Kaushal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 864 bytes --]

Thanks. I personally never needed to use ». But for someone already using
that, the ">>" binding is pretty intuitive (and same applies to "<<").

I'd vote for that change to happen so that we can have ">=" and "<="
bindings, and others beginning with "<" and ">" in future.

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:53 AM Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
wrote:

> >>   ("_<" . [?≤])
> >>   ("_>" . [?≥])
> >> Can the bindings be changed to these:
> >>   ("<=" . [?≤])
> >>   (">=" . [?≥])
>
> FWIW, I agree.
>
> > ">" is already bound to »
> > "<" is already boudn to «
>
> ">>" and "<<" would seem to be better choices.
> The shorter `C-x <' used so far made sense when we restricted C-x 8 to
> something like Latin-1, but if we want to extend coverage, I don't think
> we can afford such short bindings.
>
>
>         Stefan
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1754 bytes --]

Re: C-x 8 shorthands for ≤ and ≥

[Artur Malabarba]

> I'd vote for that change to happen

Me too.

Re: C-x 8 shorthands for ≤ and ≥

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-05-11, at 16:57, Kaushal <kaushal.modi@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks. I personally never needed to use ». But for someone already using
> that, the ">>" binding is pretty intuitive (and same applies to "<<").
>
> I'd vote for that change to happen so that we can have ">=" and "<="
> bindings, and others beginning with "<" and ">" in future.

Me too, even though I do use C-x 8 < and C-x 8 > from time to time (as
nested quotation marks in texts).

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: C-x 8 shorthands for ≤ and ≥

[Yuri Khan]

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 8:57 PM, Kaushal <kaushal.modi@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks. I personally never needed to use ». But for someone already using
> that, the ">>" binding is pretty intuitive (and same applies to "<<").

Consider also that there is the ≫ character (U+226B MUCH GREATER
THAN), which is semantically a better match for >>.

As for «», these are standard first-level quotation marks in Russian
typographic practice (among many others), but for a Russian user there
is no benefit in binding them to any C-x sequence. Because, when one
needs a quotation mark, one most probably has the Russian/Cyrillic
keyboard layout active. One would have to press the layout switch key
combo (typically Alt+Shift or Ctrl+Shift), then C-x, then whatever
binding you agree on, then switch layout again. As a result, no one
would use the proper typographic quotes, opting for the straight
double quote " (U+0022) instead.

Anyway, the problem of Unicode input needs to be solved on the
operating system or at least the desktop environment level, not in
each application separately. (Yes, Emacs is an application, not an OS
nor a DE.)

Re: C-x 8 shorthands for ≤ and ≥

[Kaushal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 247 bytes --]

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Yuri Khan <yuri.v.khan@gmail.com> wrote:

> Consider also that there is the ≫ character (U+226B MUCH GREATER
> THAN), which is semantically a better match for >>.
>

​You made a very valid point. +1​

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 701 bytes --]

Re: C-x 8 shorthands for ≤ and ≥

[Artur Malabarba]

2015-05-11 16:40 GMT+01:00 Yuri Khan <yuri.v.khan@gmail.com>:
> Consider also that there is the ≫ character (U+226B MUCH GREATER
> THAN), which is semantically a better match for >>.

Good point. Since «» are quotation marks they could instead be moved
under <" and >". That's not as intuitive, but it's still easy to
remember once you see it once.
Also, most cases where a user types C-x 8 >>, they'll be looking for
the ≫ and not the ». Not that » isn't used, it's just that (I think)
most people who type » have it in their keyboard layout already.

Re: C-x 8 shorthands for ≤ and ≥

[Rasmus]

Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am@gmail.com> writes:

> 2015-05-11 16:40 GMT+01:00 Yuri Khan <yuri.v.khan@gmail.com>:
>> Consider also that there is the ≫ character (U+226B MUCH GREATER
>> THAN), which is semantically a better match for >>.
>
> Good point. Since «» are quotation marks they could instead be moved
> under <" and >". That's not as intuitive, but it's still easy to
> remember once you see it once.
> Also, most cases where a user types C-x 8 >>, they'll be looking for
> the ≫ and not the ». Not that » isn't used, it's just that (I think)
> most people who type » have it in their keyboard layout already.

For some languages, LaTeX will interpret ">>" as "»".  E.g.

    \documentclass{article}
    \usepackage[spanish]{babel}
    \begin{document}
    <<foo>>
    \end{document}

—Rasmus

-- 
This message is brought to you by the department of redundant departments

Re: C-x 8 shorthands for ≤ and ≥

[Kaushal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1061 bytes --]

Looks like just like the double-angled quotation marks, there are also
single-angled quotation marks "› and ‹" '( http://unicodelookup.com/#angle
quotation/1 )

So does it make sense to bind them to >' and <'

So now we have ended up with

>> → ≫
>= → ≥
>" → »
>' → ›

<< → ≪
<= → ≤
<" → «
<' → ‹





--
Kaushal Modi

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am@gmail.com
> wrote:

> 2015-05-11 16:40 GMT+01:00 Yuri Khan <yuri.v.khan@gmail.com>:
> > Consider also that there is the ≫ character (U+226B MUCH GREATER
> > THAN), which is semantically a better match for >>.
>
> Good point. Since «» are quotation marks they could instead be moved
> under <" and >". That's not as intuitive, but it's still easy to
> remember once you see it once.
> Also, most cases where a user types C-x 8 >>, they'll be looking for
> the ≫ and not the ». Not that » isn't used, it's just that (I think)
> most people who type » have it in their keyboard layout already.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3333 bytes --]

Re: C-x 8 shorthands for ≤ and ≥

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-05-11, at 18:27, Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2015-05-11 16:40 GMT+01:00 Yuri Khan <yuri.v.khan@gmail.com>:
>> Consider also that there is the ≫ character (U+226B MUCH GREATER
>> THAN), which is semantically a better match for >>.
>
> Good point. Since «» are quotation marks they could instead be moved
> under <" and >". That's not as intuitive, but it's still easy to
> remember once you see it once.
> Also, most cases where a user types C-x 8 >>, they'll be looking for
> the ≫ and not the ». Not that » isn't used, it's just that (I think)
> most people who type » have it in their keyboard layout already.

I disagree.  I use « and » from time to time, and I /never/ wanted to
use ≪ or ≫.  The only use-case for them is in mathematical formulae,
where they are \ll and \gg.  BTW, this means that it's trivial to input
them using the TeX input method (which I have set as the default one –
very handy!).

And the argument of having « and » somewhere on the keyboard is also not
completely valid: in Polish, they are sometimes used as nested quotation
marks, but they are rare enough not to present on Polish keyboards.

That said, I consider using <' >' and <" >" as keybindings for single
and double quotation marks reasonable enough, if that's what makes
people happy.  I just wanted to mention that Artur's argument was wrong,
even though it was in favor of a reasonable suggestion.

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: C-x 8 shorthands for ≤ and ≥

[Stefan Monnier]

> I disagree.  I use « and » from time to time, and I /never/ wanted to
> use ≪ or ≫.

FWIW I'm in the same situation.


        Stefan

RE: C-x 8 shorthands for = and =

[Drew Adams]

> > I disagree.  I use « and » from time to time, and I /never/ wanted
> > to use ≪ or ≫.
> 
> FWIW I'm in the same situation.

And I'm wondering why we need to provide such "shortcuts".  It is
*trivial* for anyone to bind keys to insert any chars one uses often.
I don't see how we're doing anyone any favors by this.

What's so special about any particular set of Unicode chars that we
should bother to offer a predefined set of bindings for them (even if
turning on that set is optional)?  Now we're even down to looking to
bind ≫ or »?  How silly is that?  (Well, I'm sure those chars are
very useful for some people - but those who need 'em can bind 'em.)

Where's the beef?

Re: C-x 8 shorthands for ≤ and ≥

[Kaushal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1830 bytes --]

In reply to Drew's email that seems to have started by mistake in a new
thread

> And I'm wondering why we need to provide such "shortcuts".  It is
> *trivial* for anyone to bind keys to insert any chars one uses often.
> I don't see how we're doing anyone any favors by this.
>
> What's so special about any particular set of Unicode chars that we
> should bother to offer a predefined set of bindings for them (even if
> turning on that set is optional)?  Now we're even down to looking to
> bind ≫ or »?  How silly is that?  (Well, I'm sure those chars are
> very useful for some people - but those who need 'em can bind 'em.)
>
> Where's the beef?

As I mentioned in the first email, I can easily bind those to what I want.

I was motivated to email about this because I found the binding "_<" for ≤
a bit unnatural. In all the coding languages I used, ≤ was always
represented as "<=" and so thought that that binding would make more sense.

Then I realized that "<" was already taken for the « and so we could not
have the "<=" binding.

And then the thread evolved as you see.

As Stefan mentioned, the "<" binding was added at the time when probably
the other unicode characters were probably not popular.

So this was just a little gesture to "upgrade" the out-of-box bindings for
"C-x 8" since we are already setting a few default bindings for some
unicode characters.

I am fine with this discussion ending here and I will go back to using a
little hydra with a bunch of unicode chars I use frequently.


--
Kaushal Modi

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
wrote:

> > I disagree.  I use « and » from time to time, and I /never/ wanted to
> > use ≪ or ≫.
>
> FWIW I'm in the same situation.
>
>
>         Stefan
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5846 bytes --]

Re: C-x 8 shorthands for ≤ and ≥

[Kaushal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2713 bytes --]

Here's what I now have to put a clean ending to this thread (for anyone who
might end up here while looking for something):

(require 'iso-transl)
;; Add custom bindings to "C-x 8" map
(dolist (binding '((">"   . nil) ; First unbind ">" from the map
                   (">="  . [?≥])
                   (">>"  . [?≫])
                   (">\"" . [?»])
                   (">'"  . [?›])
                   ("<"   . nil) ; First unbind "<" from the map
                   ("<="  . [?≤])
                   ("<<"  . [?≪])
                   ("<\"" . [?«])
                   ("<'"  . [?‹])))
  (define-key iso-transl-ctl-x-8-map (kbd (car binding)) (cdr binding)))



--
Kaushal Modi

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Kaushal <kaushal.modi@gmail.com> wrote:

> In reply to Drew's email that seems to have started by mistake in a new
> thread
>
> > And I'm wondering why we need to provide such "shortcuts".  It is
> > *trivial* for anyone to bind keys to insert any chars one uses often.
> > I don't see how we're doing anyone any favors by this.
> >
> > What's so special about any particular set of Unicode chars that we
> > should bother to offer a predefined set of bindings for them (even if
> > turning on that set is optional)?  Now we're even down to looking to
> > bind ≫ or »?  How silly is that?  (Well, I'm sure those chars are
> > very useful for some people - but those who need 'em can bind 'em.)
> >
> > Where's the beef?
>
> As I mentioned in the first email, I can easily bind those to what I want.
>
> I was motivated to email about this because I found the binding "_<" for ≤
> a bit unnatural. In all the coding languages I used, ≤ was always
> represented as "<=" and so thought that that binding would make more sense.
>
> Then I realized that "<" was already taken for the « and so we could not
> have the "<=" binding.
>
> And then the thread evolved as you see.
>
> As Stefan mentioned, the "<" binding was added at the time when probably
> the other unicode characters were probably not popular.
>
> So this was just a little gesture to "upgrade" the out-of-box bindings for
> "C-x 8" since we are already setting a few default bindings for some
> unicode characters.
>
> I am fine with this discussion ending here and I will go back to using a
> little hydra with a bunch of unicode chars I use frequently.
>
>
> --
> Kaushal Modi
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> > I disagree.  I use « and » from time to time, and I /never/ wanted to
>> > use ≪ or ≫.
>>
>> FWIW I'm in the same situation.
>>
>>
>>         Stefan
>>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8113 bytes --]

Re: C-x 8 shorthands for ≤ and ≥

[Werner LEMBERG]

>>>   ("_<" . [?≤])
>>>   ("_>" . [?≥])
>>> Can the bindings be changed to these:
>>>   ("<=" . [?≤])
>>>   (">=" . [?≥])
> 
> FWIW, I agree.

Me too.

>> ">" is already bound to »
>> "<" is already boudn to «
> 
> ">>" and "<<" would seem to be better choices.

Yep.  Additionally, this is already used in the latin-1 input method.

> The shorter `C-x <' used so far made sense when we restricted C-x 8
> to something like Latin-1, but if we want to extend coverage, I
> don't think we can afford such short bindings.

It probably makes sense to compare the bindings with other latin-X
methods, probably finding some compromises where necessary.


    Werner

Re: C-x 8 shorthands for ≤ and ≥

[Kaushal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2295 bytes --]

ag '>.*»' in lisp/ dir turned up with these:

international/iso-transl.el:135:    ("*>"   . [?»])
international/iso-transl.el:136:    (">"    . [?»])
leim/quail/cyrillic.el:1088: ("/>>" ?»)  ;; RIGHT-POINTING DOUBLE ANGLE
QUOTATION MARK
leim/quail/latin-ltx.el:710: ("\\frqq" ?\») ("\\\">" ?\»)
leim/quail/persian.el:455: ("\\>" ?\u00BB)     ;; (ucs-insert #x00BB)»
named:
leim/quail/greek.el:799: (">>" ?») ; #x00bb
leim/quail/greek.el:1283: (";>" ?»))
leim/quail/greek.el:1428: (">>" ?»))
leim/quail/latin-alt.el:134: (">>" ?»)
leim/quail/latin-alt.el:974: (">>" ?»)
leim/quail/latin-alt.el:1049: (">>" ?»)
leim/quail/latin-alt.el:1371: (">>" ?»)
leim/quail/latin-post.el:122: (">>" ?»)
leim/quail/latin-post.el:1049: (">>" ?»)
leim/quail/latin-post.el:1214: (">>" ?»)
leim/quail/latin-post.el:2118: (">>" ?\»)
leim/quail/latin-pre.el:136: ("~>" ?\»)
leim/quail/latin-pre.el:222: ("~>" ?\»)
leim/quail/latin-pre.el:303: ("~>" ?\»)
leim/quail/latin-pre.el:474: ("~>" ?\»)
leim/quail/latin-pre.el:824: ("~>" ?\»)
leim/quail/latin-pre.el:1158: ("~>" ?\»)
leim/quail/rfc1345.el:226: ("&>>" ?\»)
org/org-entities.el:258:    ("raquo" "\\guillemotright{}" nil "»"
">>" "»" "»")
textmodes/tex-mode.el:241:  :options '("''" "\">" "\"'" ">>" "»")
textmodes/tex-mode.el:585:      (regexp-opt `("''" "\">" "\"'" ">>" "»") t))


I see that even the ">>" binding is used up for » at many places.




--
Kaushal Modi

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org> wrote:

> >>>   ("_<" . [?≤])
> >>>   ("_>" . [?≥])
> >>> Can the bindings be changed to these:
> >>>   ("<=" . [?≤])
> >>>   (">=" . [?≥])
> >
> > FWIW, I agree.
>
> Me too.
>
> >> ">" is already bound to »
> >> "<" is already boudn to «
> >
> > ">>" and "<<" would seem to be better choices.
>
> Yep.  Additionally, this is already used in the latin-1 input method.
>
> > The shorter `C-x <' used so far made sense when we restricted C-x 8
> > to something like Latin-1, but if we want to extend coverage, I
> > don't think we can afford such short bindings.
>
> It probably makes sense to compare the bindings with other latin-X
> methods, probably finding some compromises where necessary.
>
>
>     Werner
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6622 bytes --]