From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Emanuel Berg Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Display of undisplayable characters: \U01F3A8 instead of diamond Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2022 17:09:37 +0200 Message-ID: <87zgf7jmfi.fsf@dataswamp.org> References: <83y1v7w6eu.fsf@gnu.org> <83a67iqo1k.fsf@gnu.org> <87k06m55mw.fsf@disroot.org> <2b564d99d3f609d1af75@heytings.org> <87zgfgvpru.fsf@dataswamp.org> <2b564d99d37a50be72cc@heytings.org> <878rn0vnf4.fsf@dataswamp.org> <83h71ool6q.fsf@gnu.org> <2e25ca87e30a22dd28d9@heytings.org> <874jxh6k9s.fsf@yahoo.com> <87v8pw64nz.fsf@yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="6442"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:0uG4C9nwoMvPge0++QQBKY9FDDg= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 10 17:14:42 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oX2Bu-0001XQ-8T for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 10 Sep 2022 17:14:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52838 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oX2Bt-0004qZ-3R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 10 Sep 2022 11:14:41 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34880) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oX27A-0000mQ-8X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Sep 2022 11:09:48 -0400 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]:35052) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oX278-0003kD-C4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Sep 2022 11:09:47 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oX275-0006V3-SZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Sep 2022 17:09:43 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Mail-Copies-To: never Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 10 Sep 2022 11:11:19 -0400 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:295131 Archived-At: Gregory Heytings wrote: >> We should never change behavior in a way that makes >> a previously comfortable user become uncomfortable. > > I fear that's not a useful rule, because users develop > Stockholm syndromes with the limitations of the software > they use. We are suggesting a more advanced Emacs where this would be configurable - as easy as anything else - to get the desired behavior, including the diamonds if that what (some) people want. If the bug did it, it's possible for Emacs to do as well! >> I don't see why you have to conflate clearly unreasonable >> "comfort" with reasonable behavior > > The point is that everyone has their own definition/views of > what is "reasonable" and "comfortable". Everyone that uses it have (or could have at least) their own views what makes up a good Emacs. This multitude is the strength of the FOSS world and just in general, what an awful world it would be if everyone was the same. We are not against you using or pushing for your software, on the contrary. Maybe it is better, as you say. But that's not the issue here, really. -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal