From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [emacs-bidi] Treatment of LRE,RLE,LRO,RLO,PDF,LRM,RLM Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 08:24:57 -0500 Message-ID: References: <83bp5te3s8.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1290110294 14994 80.91.229.12 (18 Nov 2010 19:58:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:58:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Kenichi Handa , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andreas Schwab Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 18 20:58:10 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PJAcT-0007gA-Lt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 20:58:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44575 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PJAcT-0000Hi-2N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:58:09 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50318 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PJAaq-0007lI-BS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:56:29 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJAap-0004Z4-BY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:56:28 -0500 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:60397) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJAap-0004Yt-6N; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:56:27 -0500 Original-Received: from pastel.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id oAIJuPAF006672; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:56:25 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id BA8A4A82B2; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 08:24:57 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Andreas Schwab's message of "Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:55:07 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV3683=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:132828 Archived-At: >> It is annoying allright, but [U+1234][U+5678] is more readable than >> U+1234U+5678. However, if others disagree, I can change that back. Even more so for chars followed by digits where the display could be fairly confusing: U+123456 rather than [U+1234]56. > \u1234\u5678 is even better. I largely agree, since it's more in keeping with the Emacs tradition, but again if digits follow, this is ambiguous: \u123456 (tho this could also be displayed as \u1234\ 56). Stefan