From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: translation-table-for-input Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:25:17 +0200 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1234538821 13636 80.91.229.12 (13 Feb 2009 15:27:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:27:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: handa@m17n.org, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 13 16:28:16 2009 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 4.50) id 1LXzxM-0007h0-Fu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:27:56 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56385 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LXzw2-0001yl-Fr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:26:34 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LXzuq-0001Pa-TQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:25:20 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LXzup-0001PB-PF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:25:20 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53753 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LXzup-0001P6-MR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:25:19 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout5.012.net.il ([84.95.2.13]:14592) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LXzun-0001XS-NI; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:25:17 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout5.012.net.il by i_mtaout5.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0KF000H00G4KZ100@i_mtaout5.012.net.il>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:25:34 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.24.112]) by i_mtaout5.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0KF0004EQG6K09V0@i_mtaout5.012.net.il>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:25:34 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 9.1 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:109043 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, handa@m17n.org > Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:27:39 -0500 > > >> > Its use for character code unification is obsolete, but otherwise > >> > having a possibility to translate the output of an input method is > >> > a valuable feature. > >> I see no such evidence. > > My evidence is that there's no alternative to translating the output > > of an input method. > > That's not an evidence that it's "valuable". The absence of any code > that uses that feature tells me it's not valuable. Look, if someone would suggest today adding such a feature, I'd probably object on the grounds of lack of use. But what on Earth could be a good reason to remove something that is already there, have been there for several Emacs releases, and is documented in the manual?? And after you already agreed to leave it, what is pushing you so hard to insist on declaring it obsolete? Don't we have more important things to do and argue about?