Re: Insert Euro symbol

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>]

On Thu, 2 May 2002, Kai =?iso-8859-1?q?Gro=DFjohann?= wrote:

> Emacs by default provides the very convenient C-x 8 series of
> keybindings.  For me, personally, it is in some cases preferable to
> using input methods: I use german-prefix as an input method and have
> gotten used to ' being a regular self-inserting key, so switching to
> latin-1-prefix won't make me happy.  Nevertheless, I sometimes want
> to write é or à or the like.  For this, C-x 8 is convenient.

Why not augment the existing input methods to do what you find convenient 
in C-x 8, or make a new input method, if augmenting existing ones is 
impractical?

I don't think we should extend C-x 8, since it's a legacy ``input 
method'' which predates Leim.  We now have Leim and the native input 
methods provided by the various keyboards/windowing systems (like XIM, 
for example).  It doesn't sound like a good idea to have yet another, 3rd 
way of producing non-ASCII characters.  C-x 8 should be supported for 
back compatibility, but do we really want to extend it?

> Do you think that there should be a keybinding of some sort to insert
> the Euro character?  (A keybinding that is not in an input method.)

I think it should be possible to insert the Euro with an input method.  
People who don't use input methods can use the keystrokes their keyboard 
supports for that.

> When Emacs uses Unicode internally, the distinction
> will be irrelevant I guess.  That would be an argument in favor of
> C-x 8.)

You mean, you'll want C-x 8 to be able to insert any Unicode character?  
Or just some of them?  If the latter, which ones?

> Do you think a C-x 9 series of bindings, paralleling C-x 8 but in
> Latin-9 instead of Latin-1, would be useful?

If you agree that C-x 8 is deprecated, C-x 9 is a step in the wrong 
direction.

> (What about the poor Latin-2 folks, though?)

Why, C-x 10, of course ;-)