Boldface typing

Boldface typing

[twlllmxxx]

Just learning emacs. Editing text, I want to type a word in boldface
and then go back to default. So I use M-o b and type in boldface, then
M-o d and continue typing. It looks right: one word in boldface and
the rest in default. Then I save the file. Then I re-open it, and the
boldface is gone. Maybe I made a mistake. I repeat the editing, save
the file, and then re-open it. Again the boldface is gone. Any ideas?

I'm working from Learning GNU Emacs by Cameron et al., O'Reilly.

This is GNU Emacs 24.2.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600).

Re: Boldface typing

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

twlllmxxx <dogbreath@twilliam.org> writes:

> Just learning emacs. Editing text,

Ok.  So what is a text file?


> I want to type a word in boldface
> and then go back to default. So I use M-o b and type in boldface, then
> M-o d and continue typing. It looks right: one word in boldface and
> the rest in default. Then I save the file. Then I re-open it, and the
> boldface is gone. Maybe I made a mistake. I repeat the editing, save
> the file, and then re-open it. Again the boldface is gone. Any ideas?
>
> I'm working from Learning GNU Emacs by Cameron et al., O'Reilly.
>
> This is GNU Emacs 24.2.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600).


Use M-x enriched-mode RET first.  Then you will save not a text file,
but an enriched-text file.



-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                 http://www.informatimago.com/
“The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a
dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to
keep the man from touching the equipment.” -- Carl Bass CEO Autodesk

Re: Boldface typing

[Rusi]

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 9:59:31 AM UTC+5:30, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
> twlllmxxx  writes:
> 
> > Just learning emacs. Editing text,
> 
> Ok.  So what is a text file?
> 
> 
> > I want to type a word in boldface
> > and then go back to default. So I use M-o b and type in boldface, then
> > M-o d and continue typing. It looks right: one word in boldface and
> > the rest in default. Then I save the file. Then I re-open it, and the
> > boldface is gone. Maybe I made a mistake. I repeat the editing, save
> > the file, and then re-open it. Again the boldface is gone. Any ideas?
> >
> > I'm working from Learning GNU Emacs by Cameron et al., O'Reilly.
> >
> > This is GNU Emacs 24.2.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600).
> 
> 
> Use M-x enriched-mode RET first.  Then you will save not a text file,
> but an enriched-text file.

If what you need is a word processor you should use that -- eg libreoffice, MSWord etc

emacs does a rather poor job of word processing

The solution in the emacs/unix world 20 years ago was latex/groff etc -- ie
document processors

Today the goto-solution for this (and 1000 other things) in emacs-land is org mode.
It does have a long learning curve though...

Re: Boldface typing

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

Rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 9:59:31 AM UTC+5:30, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
>> twlllmxxx  writes:
>> 
>> > Just learning emacs. Editing text,
>> 
>> Ok.  So what is a text file?
>> 
>> 
>> > I want to type a word in boldface
>> > and then go back to default. So I use M-o b and type in boldface, then
>> > M-o d and continue typing. It looks right: one word in boldface and
>> > the rest in default. Then I save the file. Then I re-open it, and the
>> > boldface is gone. Maybe I made a mistake. I repeat the editing, save
>> > the file, and then re-open it. Again the boldface is gone. Any ideas?
>> >
>> > I'm working from Learning GNU Emacs by Cameron et al., O'Reilly.
>> >
>> > This is GNU Emacs 24.2.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600).
>> 
>> 
>> Use M-x enriched-mode RET first.  Then you will save not a text file,
>> but an enriched-text file.
>
> If what you need is a word processor you should use that -- eg libreoffice, MSWord etc

No, definitely no!

If you need a word processor, you should do as RMS said: extend emacs to
include a word processor in it!


> emacs does a rather poor job of word processing

How do you know?  The program isn't even written yet!


> The solution in the emacs/unix world 20 years ago was latex/groff etc -- ie
> document processors

Of course, that'd be better.  Notice that this is exactly what
enriched-text is: tagged text (html-like).


> Today the goto-solution for this (and 1000 other things) in emacs-land is org mode.
> It does have a long learning curve though...


-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                 http://www.informatimago.com/
“The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a
dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to
keep the man from touching the equipment.” -- Carl Bass CEO Autodesk

Re: Boldface typing

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2014-12-31, at 05:55, Rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:

> emacs does a rather poor job of word processing
>
> The solution in the emacs/unix world 20 years ago was latex/groff etc -- ie
> document processors

Today, the solution is LaTeX (without the groff part), possibly ConTeXt
(see http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Main_Page), and of course the new kid
on the block, Org-mode (which can export to LaTeX, but not (yet) to
ConTeXt).

> Today the goto-solution for this (and 1000 other things) in emacs-land is org mode.
> It does have a long learning curve though...

What?  No, really.

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Boldface typing

[Rasmus]

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl> writes:

> On 2014-12-31, at 05:55, Rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> emacs does a rather poor job of word processing
>>
>> The solution in the emacs/unix world 20 years ago was latex/groff etc -- ie
>> document processors
>
> Today, the solution is LaTeX (without the groff part), possibly ConTeXt
> (see http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Main_Page), and of course the new kid
> on the block, Org-mode (which can export to LaTeX, but not (yet) to
> ConTeXt).

It also exports to odt which in turn can be edited in libreoffice.

-- 
Need more coffee. . .

Re: Boldface typing

[Rusi]

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 1:56:16 PM UTC+5:30, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
> On 2014-12-31, at 05:55, Rusi wrote:
> 
> > emacs does a rather poor job of word processing
> >
> > The solution in the emacs/unix world 20 years ago was latex/groff etc -- ie
> > document processors
> 
> Today, the solution is LaTeX (without the groff part),

I personally could get more out of groff than out of latex.
Also it looked more beautiful and the ps files were much smaller

[20+ years ago...]

Re: Boldface typing

[Rusi]

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 9:59:31 AM UTC+5:30, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
> twlllmxxx  writes:
> 
> > Just learning emacs. Editing text,
> 
> Ok.  So what is a text file?

You are speaking from a time when ASCII reigned supreme.

Today Unicode age...
Here is pure text, with 𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑐 and 𝐛𝐨𝐥𝐝

Re: Boldface typing

[Rusi]

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 4:34:34 PM UTC+5:30, Rasmus wrote:
> Marcin Borkowski writes:
> 
> > On 2014-12-31, at 05:55, Rusi wrote:
> >
> >> emacs does a rather poor job of word processing
> >>
> >> The solution in the emacs/unix world 20 years ago was latex/groff etc -- ie
> >> document processors
> >
> > Today, the solution is LaTeX (without the groff part), possibly ConTeXt
> > (see http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Main_Page), and of course the new kid
> > on the block, Org-mode (which can export to LaTeX, but not (yet) to
> > ConTeXt).
> 
> It also exports to odt which in turn can be edited in libreoffice.

Yes, but once one starts editing in libreoffice, either
1. The edits have to be hand-patched back into emacs-org
or
2. One has to discard the org and then on stick to editing with libreoffice


IOW if the odt-org bridge were two-way that would be pure bliss!
But I guess that is about 5 times harder than a one-way exporter

Re: Boldface typing

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2014-12-31, at 13:20, Rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 1:56:16 PM UTC+5:30, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
>> On 2014-12-31, at 05:55, Rusi wrote:
>> 
>> > emacs does a rather poor job of word processing
>> >
>> > The solution in the emacs/unix world 20 years ago was latex/groff etc -- ie
>> > document processors
>> 
>> Today, the solution is LaTeX (without the groff part),
>
> I personally could get more out of groff than out of latex.
> Also it looked more beautiful and the ps files were much smaller
>
> [20+ years ago...]

(Approximately) 20 years ago, when LaTeX2e was the hot new thing, it
might have been the case.  Prior to LaTeX2e, customizing your LaTeX
output was a nightmare.  Nowadays, with thousands of classes and
packages, including memoir, koma-script, tikz, beamer and many others,
the situation is a lot different - especially with the very dynamic
community, releasing several packages/modules/plugins every month.  And
don't forget the ongoing work on LaTeX3 and LuaTeX (though this last is
more on the ConTeXt side of things; ConTeXt is also being constantly
worked on, and is capable of many things, including native XML input,
XML/ePUB output, very good support for tables, images and columns -
LaTeX is notoriuously lacking good support for columns and wrapping text
around images).  Is groff also developed at such a pace?  (I'm just
asking, I don't know.)

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Boldface typing

[Rusi]

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 6:53:34 PM UTC+5:30, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
> On 2014-12-31, at 13:20, Rusi wrote:
> 
> > On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 1:56:16 PM UTC+5:30, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
> >> On 2014-12-31, at 05:55, Rusi wrote:
> >> 
> >> > emacs does a rather poor job of word processing
> >> >
> >> > The solution in the emacs/unix world 20 years ago was latex/groff etc -- ie
> >> > document processors
> >> 
> >> Today, the solution is LaTeX (without the groff part),
> >
> > I personally could get more out of groff than out of latex.
> > Also it looked more beautiful and the ps files were much smaller
> >
> > [20+ years ago...]
> 
> (Approximately) 20 years ago, when LaTeX2e was the hot new thing, it
> might have been the case.  Prior to LaTeX2e, customizing your LaTeX
> output was a nightmare.  Nowadays, with thousands of classes and
> packages, including memoir, koma-script, tikz, beamer and many others,
> the situation is a lot different - especially with the very dynamic
> community, releasing several packages/modules/plugins every month.  And
> don't forget the ongoing work on LaTeX3 and LuaTeX (though this last is
> more on the ConTeXt side of things; ConTeXt is also being constantly
> worked on, and is capable of many things, including native XML input,
> XML/ePUB output, very good support for tables, images and columns -
> LaTeX is notoriuously lacking good support for columns and wrapping text
> around images).  Is groff also developed at such a pace?  (I'm just
> asking, I don't know.)

groff development is dead (best I know)
groff images -- Hoo! Boy!!

Good to remember that the DTP revolution centered around things like pagemaker
doing images and text together.
Does latex do a half decent job of images?? Dunno... I find it implausible

Re: Boldface typing

[Rusi]

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 7:25:48 PM UTC+5:30, Rusi wrote:
> 
> groff development is dead (best I know)
> groff images -- Hoo! Boy!!
> 
> Good to remember that the DTP revolution centered around things like pagemaker
> doing images and text together.
> Does latex do a half decent job of images?? Dunno... I find it implausible

JUST saw this
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0115069

:-)

Re: Boldface typing

[Dale Snell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 637 bytes --]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 05:55:46 -0800 (PST)
Rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> groff development is dead (best I know)
> groff images -- Hoo! Boy!!
> 

Groff development is not dead.  Slow, yes, very slow.  But dead, no.
Most of the recent work has been done in the macro packages (MOM in
particular), but changes to the base C++ code are in the design
stages.  Review the Groff mailing list for more information.  (Anybody
who wants to help is welcome.)

--Dale

--
"Text processing has made it possible to right-justify any idea, even
one which cannot be justified on any other grounds."
		-- J. Finnegan, USC.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: Boldface typing

[Rusi]

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 8:24:09 PM UTC+5:30, Dale Snell wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 05:55:46 -0800 (PST)
> Rusi  wrote:
> 
> > 
> > groff development is dead (best I know)
> > groff images -- Hoo! Boy!!
> > 
> 
> Groff development is not dead.  Slow, yes, very slow.  But dead, no.
> Most of the recent work has been done in the macro packages (MOM in
> particular), but changes to the base C++ code are in the design
> stages.  Review the Groff mailing list for more information.  (Anybody
> who wants to help is welcome.)
> 

heh -- sweet!
How does mom compare to mm -- (the only macro set I ever used)?

Re: Boldface typing

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2014-12-31, at 15:08, Rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:

> JUST saw this
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0115069
>
> :-)

Yeah, it was discussed on the Org-mode list and on TeX.SE, among
others.  The consensus was that it's total BS (from methodological point
of view).

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Boldface typing

[Dale Snell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1817 bytes --]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:02:21 -0800 (PST)
Rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 8:24:09 PM UTC+5:30, Dale Snell wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 05:55:46 -0800 (PST)
> > Rusi  wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > groff development is dead (best I know)
> > > groff images -- Hoo! Boy!!
> > > 
> > 
> > Groff development is not dead.  Slow, yes, very slow.  But dead, no.
> > Most of the recent work has been done in the macro packages (MOM in
> > particular), but changes to the base C++ code are in the design
> > stages.  Review the Groff mailing list for more information.
> > (Anybody who wants to help is welcome.)
> > 
> 
> heh -- sweet!
> How does mom compare to mm -- (the only macro set I ever used)?

That's hard for me to say, since I've never used mm.  :-)  However,
mm is like ms, in that all the macros and escapes consist of one
or two characters.  Mom, on the other hand, takes advantage of
Groff's long names.  This allows for much more understandable
macro and escape names.  So instead of, say, ".Co", mom would use
".COLLATE", and so on.  Mom separates typographic controls from
documentation controls.  So you can create an epigraph, say,
without having to fiddle with vertical and horizontal spacing --
mom does all that for you.  (That's kind of a cheat; mom has a
.EPIGRAPH macro, so it's easy to set up.)

To be honest, the best way to get a handle on mom is to check out
Peter Schaffter's web site.  He has _extensive_ HTML documentation
for mom there.  The online docs are at:

    <http://www.schaffter.ca/mom/momdoc/toc.html>

Mom isn't perfect, of course.  But I find it quite enjoyable to
use.

Anyway, I hope this helps.

--Dale

-- 
Q:  Why did the Klingon color his hair blond?
A:  Because it was a good day to dye.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: Boldface typing

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2014-12-31, at 14:55, Rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:

> Good to remember that the DTP revolution centered around things like pagemaker
> doing images and text together.
> Does latex do a half decent job of images?? Dunno... I find it implausible

Well.

It depends on what you mean by "doing job of images".

LaTeX is not a DTP system, it's a typesetting system aimed primarily at
scientific publications.  It can (of course) reserve some space on the
page for an image - even include an image into a PDF, and do some basic
transformations (like scaling, rotating or cropping).  That is no
problem.  It can wrap an image with text, though this is much less
reliable and has severe limitations.  (I hope that the new LaTeX3 output
routine will change it for the better, but we'll have to wait for that.
In the meantime, if yoy want to produce graphics-heavy documents,
ConTeXt might be the way to go.

  ConTeXt is also TeX-based, but it's completely independent of LaTeX2
(either the "old" 2.09, or the "new" 2e), and is designed much, much
better than LaTeX 2.09 and much better than LaTeX2e (which is
constrained by at least partial backwards compatibility).  ConTeXt
shines especially in a few areas LaTeX is lacking: images, grid
typesetting, columns.  Also, while LaTeX is very
scientific-stuff-centric, ConTeXt is much more general (though it was
historically aimed primarily at educational materials).

OTOH, if by "doing job of images", you mean /producing/ images (like
diagrams, graphs etc.), you almost couldn't have a tool better than
LaTeX.  Check out the manual for TikZ (oddly, the file is named
pgfmanual.pdf); it is a huge engine for programmatically generating very
sophisticated graphics.

All in all, I think that comparing LaTeX with DTP stuff is a bit unfair:
they are a bit different animals.  Not as different as in "Word vs
LaTeX", but still.  There are things (especially graphics-related) where
LaTeX clearly falls behind, and there are things (especially
mathematics-related, both in the sense of math formulae and in the sense
of e.g. producing diagrams posessing certain mathematical properties;
also, bibliographies, though to be honest I don't know how InDesign et
al. perform in this department) that it's hard to beat.

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Boldface typing

[twlllmxxx]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 05:23:52 +0100, "Pascal J. Bourguignon"
<pjb@informatimago.com> wrote:

>twlllmxxx <dogbreath@twilliam.org> writes:
>
>> Just learning emacs. Editing text,
>
>Ok.  So what is a text file?
>
>
>> I want to type a word in boldface
>> and then go back to default. So I use M-o b and type in boldface, then
>> M-o d and continue typing. It looks right: one word in boldface and
>> the rest in default. Then I save the file. Then I re-open it, and the
>> boldface is gone. Maybe I made a mistake. I repeat the editing, save
>> the file, and then re-open it. Again the boldface is gone. Any ideas?
>>
>> I'm working from Learning GNU Emacs by Cameron et al., O'Reilly.
>>
>> This is GNU Emacs 24.2.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600).
>
>
>Use M-x enriched-mode RET first.  Then you will save not a text file,
>but an enriched-text file.

Thank you, pjb, that's very helpful.  I just started with emacs.

Re: Boldface typing

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2014-12-31, at 17:31, twlllmxxx <dogbreath@twilliam.org> wrote:

> Thank you, pjb, that's very helpful.  I just started with emacs.

Welcome.  And don't get discouraged, neither by some heated discussions
(like the one you seemingly started;-) - yes, Rusi and me do disagree,
but we both try not to be rude/offensive/whatever, nor by the
notoriously steep Emacs learning curve.  (I've been using Emacs for some
15 years, and only recently started thinking of myself as of an
intermediate user, not a novice...)

If I may give you any advice (though advising is a dangerous business,
both within Emacs and outside it), reading the Emacs manual (or at least
large parts of it) is a good idea; it is a very good manual, even if it
has its dark corners.  If you don't have time for that, check Mickey
Petersen's "Mastering Emacs" articles and Sacha Chua's sketchnotes about
Emacs.

Best, and again: welcome to the best text editor in the world!

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Boldface typing

[twlllmxxx]

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 20:55:13 -0800 (PST), Rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 9:59:31 AM UTC+5:30, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
>> twlllmxxx  writes:
>> 
>> > Just learning emacs. Editing text,
>> 
>> Ok.  So what is a text file?
>> 
>> 
>> > I want to type a word in boldface
>> > and then go back to default. So I use M-o b and type in boldface, then
>> > M-o d and continue typing. It looks right: one word in boldface and
>> > the rest in default. Then I save the file. Then I re-open it, and the
>> > boldface is gone. Maybe I made a mistake. I repeat the editing, save
>> > the file, and then re-open it. Again the boldface is gone. Any ideas?
>> >
>> > I'm working from Learning GNU Emacs by Cameron et al., O'Reilly.
>> >
>> > This is GNU Emacs 24.2.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600).
>> 
>> 
>> Use M-x enriched-mode RET first.  Then you will save not a text file,
>> but an enriched-text file.
>
>If what you need is a word processor you should use that -- eg libreoffice, MSWord etc
>
>emacs does a rather poor job of word processing
>
>The solution in the emacs/unix world 20 years ago was latex/groff etc -- ie
>document processors
>
>Today the goto-solution for this (and 1000 other things) in emacs-land is org mode.
>It does have a long learning curve though...

Thanks, Rusi.  Good suggestion.  I've been using MSWord, but hating it
for being top-heavy with bells and whistles that I don't use.  I also
use Notepad for its simplicity.  If I could add a bell and maybe 1 1/2
whistles to Notepad I'd be happy.  It's the fabled extensibility of
emacs that drew me to it.  Notepad with hooks, that's what I want.

Besides, I'm retired and this looks like a fun project.

Re: Boldface typing

[Rusi]

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 10:21:48 PM UTC+5:30, twlllmxxx wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 20:55:13 -0800 (PST), Rusi wrote:
> >Today the goto-solution for this (and 1000 other things) in emacs-land is org mode.
> >It does have a long learning curve though...
> 
> Thanks, Rusi.  Good suggestion.  I've been using MSWord, but hating it
> for being top-heavy with bells and whistles that I don't use.  I also
> use Notepad for its simplicity.  If I could add a bell and maybe 1 1/2
> whistles to Notepad I'd be happy.  It's the fabled extensibility of
> emacs that drew me to it.  Notepad with hooks, that's what I want.

The legendary customizability of emacs is quite a distraction.
If you are a beginner its best to spend your energy on finding the best
(sub)environment of emacs that suits your needs upto say 80% rather than micromanaging options.  Later you can see the options

Re: Boldface typing

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2014-12-31, at 17:51, twlllmxxx <dogbreath@twilliam.org> wrote:

> Notepad with hooks, that's what I want.

This is probably the funniest description of Emacs I've ever heard, and
surprisingly accurate.  I'm stealing it.  Thanks a lot!

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Boldface typing

[Óscar Fuentes]

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl> writes:

> On 2014-12-31, at 15:08, Rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> JUST saw this
>> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0115069
>>
>> :-)
>
> Yeah, it was discussed on the Org-mode list and on TeX.SE, among
> others.  The consensus was that it's total BS (from methodological point
> of view).

That smells like cognitive dissonance at play.

Re: Boldface typing

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2014-12-31, at 19:02, Óscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es> wrote:

> Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl> writes:
>
>> On 2014-12-31, at 15:08, Rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> JUST saw this
>>> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0115069
>>>
>>> :-)
>>
>> Yeah, it was discussed on the Org-mode list and on TeX.SE, among
>> others.  The consensus was that it's total BS (from methodological point
>> of view).
>
> That smells like cognitive dissonance at play.

+1 ;-D

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Boldface typing

[Alberto Luaces]

Rusi writes:

> On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 9:59:31 AM UTC+5:30, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
>> twlllmxxx  writes:
>> 
>> > Just learning emacs. Editing text,
>> 
>> Ok.  So what is a text file?
>
> You are speaking from a time when ASCII reigned supreme.
>
> Today Unicode age...
> Here is pure text, with 𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑐 and 𝐛𝐨𝐥𝐝
>

MATHEMATICAL_ITALIC and MATHEMATICAL_BOLD? I do not think that is the
intended use...

-- 
Alberto

Re: Boldface typing

[Rusi]

On Monday, January 5, 2015 3:45:25 PM UTC+5:30, Alberto Luaces wrote:
> Rusi writes:
> 
> > On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 9:59:31 AM UTC+5:30, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
> >> twlllmxxx  writes:
> >> 
> >> > Just learning emacs. Editing text,
> >> 
> >> Ok.  So what is a text file?
> >
> > You are speaking from a time when ASCII reigned supreme.
> >
> > Today Unicode age...
> > Here is pure text, with 𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑐 and 𝐛𝐨𝐥𝐝
> >
> 
> MATHEMATICAL_ITALIC and MATHEMATICAL_BOLD? I do not think that is the
> intended use...
> 

Which intention?
Ok maybe the OPs intention is mismatched by the use of these unicode blocks.

But I was talking mainly to Pascal and saying that the old text=ASCII
assumption 
does not make sense in 2014

In some more detail:
http://blog.languager.org/2014/04/unicode-and-unix-assumption.html