From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: lax matching is not a great default behavior Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:30:16 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <> <<837fl2qzs2.fsf@gnu.org>> <> <> <<83610ikvto.fsf@gnu.org>> <> <<83bna6ipn7.fsf@gnu.org>> <<45e1580a-863c-4bd7-82ec-38c27a0d930e@default>> <<831tb2ghkf.fsf@gnu.org>> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1449264657 32109 80.91.229.3 (4 Dec 2015 21:30:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 21:30:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jwiegley@gmail.com, per@starback.se, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii , Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 04 22:30:44 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1a4xwB-0001CE-QU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 22:30:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43579 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a4xwB-0006EC-1l for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 16:30:43 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49530) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a4xvt-0006Di-J9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 16:30:26 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a4xvs-0001gY-EZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 16:30:25 -0500 Original-Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:35399) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a4xvo-0001eP-If; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 16:30:20 -0500 Original-Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id tB4LUH9S003150 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 4 Dec 2015 21:30:18 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tB4LUHUX030533 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 4 Dec 2015 21:30:17 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0012.oracle.com (abhmp0012.oracle.com [141.146.116.18]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tB4LUH3Q024017; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 21:30:17 GMT In-Reply-To: <<831tb2ghkf.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 156.151.31.81 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:195902 Archived-At: > > > No, because ignoring accents is just a small part of character > > > folding. Please take a look at character-fold.el for the details. > > > > Agreed. And neither is it folding of diacriticals, because there > > are also ad hoc foldings (e.g., quote marks). And there will > > likely be more to come. It is, in fact, a hodge podge of foldings > > - pretty much all of the various char foldings provided by Emacs > > so far, except for letter case. >=20 > Actually, it's not a hodge-podge at all. Barring any user-level > customizations, it can be formally defined (and has been defined > elsewhere) what is and what isn't folded. Whether it is formally defined or not does not answer the question about the name to use for Emacs users. The behavior is a combination of diacritical folding and some ad hoc foldings. Do you have a _specific_ name for it, even one coming from the formal definition? And if so, is that name a good one for Emacs users? AFAICT, "character folding" is as good as we've come up with, so far - not some specific kind of character folding. And this is because the behavior is not so straightforward as just folding diacriticals. > > Why not leave it off by default, for now? >=20 > "Why not" is not a compelling argument, sorry. It cannot > win the "why not" argument in the other direction. "Why change the default?" is precisely the question Emacs dev generally asks itself. That is, why not leave it unchanged? It is default change that should be argued for. No "compelling" argument for default change should mean we leave the default alone. The question should not be "Why not change the default?". > > > turning it off today means that it will get much less testing, > > > and therefore bugs related to it...will most probably remain > > > hidden for who knows how long. > > > > I seriously doubt that. That sounds alarmist, to me. >=20 > This is in fact based on actual experience of testing new=20 > features in Emacs, during several pretests of a few major > releases. No one is arguing that it will get less testing during pretest if you turn it on during pretest. You are turning things on their head. The question is about the default for the release, not whether it should be tested or turned on for pretests. This has been stated more than once now by more than one person. But you keep giving the argument that turning it on for pretesting is beneficial. So it is. So turn it on for pretesting, to get more feedback, and off for the release. We will continue to get feedback after the release even if it is turned off. And later (e.g. for the following release) we can make a better judgment than any that can be made now or during the pretest for this release. > > My expectation, if we turn it off by default, is that users will > > try it, like it, and possibly ask for it to become the default > > behavior. >=20 > OTOH, if we turn it off by default, users might not even find it or > know it exists for another 5 years. Wanna bet? ;-)