Re: PATCH to add euro symbol to French-{postfix, alt-postfix, prefix} input methods

[Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org>]

In article <8563w6vipk.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> > What bothers me is that the same input method suddenly switches the
> > encoding I need to use from under my feet, just because I used one
> > particular character supported by that input method.

> Huh?  That's not related to the input method at all.  The input method
> switches nothing.  It is the presence of the character (and in the
> unicode-2 branch, we don't even have to unify those characters anymore)
> in the buffer that requires some specific coding.

> > And on top of that, if I already used some of the characters not in
> > Latin-9, my only practical choice is UTF-8.  Somehow, this sounds
> > wrong to me, but it looks like I'm the only one bothered by that, so
> > maybe this problem exists only in my eyes.

> It is not related to input methods.  In fact, I find it somewhat silly
> to have different latin-x input methods at all.  Why don't we replace
> them all with a single latin-x input method, or with language specific
> ones?  It seems somewhat pointless to have input methods that
> meticulously avoid producing a certain character when this character can
> be produced by any number of other means.

I can think of one reason to have them.  While one is using
latin-x-* input methods, he can think that he never type a
character not included in latin-x.  In other word, if he
wants to type a character not supproted by latin-x-* input
methods, he must expect that his file can't be saved by
latin-x.

---
Kenichi Handa
handa@ni.aist.go.jp