Hi Stefan,

I chose ~e, because that is what the author of "latin-prefix" used,
though ~E makes more sense to me, as the actual key-sequence would then
be S-` S-e  As for the french and latin [alt-]postfix methods, is it ok
to keep it as e=, for simplicity, and to prevent an accidental S-e S-=
(which would result in E+ instead of E=)?  I'm not sure if someone is
going to write a new patch, but I fixed a few issues with the attached
patch.  My v1 patch had some issues...

Best regards,
Nick


On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 17:05 -0700, Nick Steeves wrote:
> Hi Handa, Chong,
> 
> Please note that I've attached a revised patch which puts the € rule in
> its proper alphabetized place in the stack of  quail rules, for the
> french-[alt-]postfix sections, and fixes a BUG I would have introduced
> in french-prefix.  It would have been a minor bug, but I hadn't noticed
> that the latin-prefix had already defined it's own method for composing
> the €.  I wrote "=e" instead of "~e", but that is fixed with the version
> 2 patch.  Also, I had made a small consistency mistake in latin-postfix,
> where I wrote ("e==" ?€) instead of ("e==" ]"e="]).  It didn't effect
> functionality for me, so I didn't notice anything when I tested the
> patch; I fixed this too.  The attached patch is far, far cleaner.  What
> is more, is it's usefully named.  Sorry about the generic useless
> filename of the last patch.
> 
> The patch adds the euro symbol € to the auto-composed french input
> methods.  eg: typing e= changes the e= into €.  France uses the €, and
> it is also nice to be able to use it when writing emails.  The € is
> already found in the full latin input methods, and this patch can really
> be considered a trivial copy and paste from the latin section, to the
> french section.  I added the composing rule to all of the french
> methods, for completeness, although I only use french-postfix.
> 
> Cheers,
> Nick


On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 16:31 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Can anyone who uses quail shed light on this proposed patch?  Would it
> > be of any use?
> 
> The latin-post version looks OK to me.  Intuitive and not
> too intrusive, tho I'd use "E=" rather than "e=".
> 
> For the latin-pre version ("~e") I don't know what to think of it: it's
> not terribly intuitive, and it is misplaced (see how the other entries
> are ordred).  But at least it doesn't introduce a new prefix (like "=E"
> would), so maybe the tilde is OK.
> In anycase, I'd also use the uppercase E here, i.e. "~E" rather than "~e".
> 
> 
>         Stefan