Re: C-x 8 shorthands for ≤ and ≥

[Kaushal <kaushal.modi@gmail.com>]

[-- 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 --]