From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jean-Christophe Helary Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: evaluating numbers Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 09:59:14 +0900 Message-ID: <4836980E-C425-466C-BB86-5E962C4B3F96@traduction-libre.org> References: <875zjw2emg.fsf@gmx.net> <618B38D9-CD34-4200-8CA1-1A6B0922A83A@traduction-libre.org> <871ruk2d3f.fsf@gmx.net> <3C929D7B-1C10-4713-9EDA-55C80FC36AD8@traduction-libre.org> <835zjvg385.fsf@gnu.org> <83sgmyd6rw.fsf@gnu.org> <835zjucwbz.fsf@gnu.org> <628A3663-BDD3-47C5-B4F4-E260FD900691@traduction-libre.org> <83o8xla50f.fsf@gnu.org> <8336ex9sow.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3594.4.19\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="127324"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" To: Emacs development discussions Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 10 02:00:13 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iTbaO-000Wxz-Dq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 02:00:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40546 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iTbaM-00038q-Ki for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Nov 2019 20:00:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44842) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iTbZu-00036f-5R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Nov 2019 19:59:43 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iTbZs-0000Ce-Kx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Nov 2019 19:59:41 -0500 Original-Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]:60751) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iTbZs-0000Bu-Ex for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Nov 2019 19:59:40 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 182.251.135.252 Original-Received: from [172.20.10.2] (KD182251135252.au-net.ne.jp [182.251.135.252]) (Authenticated sender: jean.christophe.helary@traduction-libre.org) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 827D260002 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 2019 00:59:32 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <8336ex9sow.fsf@gnu.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3594.4.19) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 217.70.183.195 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:242061 Archived-At: > On Nov 9, 2019, at 20:48, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >=20 >> I'm not questioning the default, I'm trying to understand a feature = and it's default setting. Apologies if that takes time. >=20 > I'm happy to explain what is still unclear. It seemed to me that the > latest questions all aim at asking why not do something other than the > default, they don't ask clarifications about the feature, which is > really quite simple. Apologies if this is my misunderstanding. As I just replied to Stephan, there is a big cognitive gap here. And = it's not easy to wrap my mind around it. >>> If you want to suggest a different way of looking for a suitable = font, please do. >>=20 >> Maybe not "look for a suitable font" but set a default font for that = action. There is a finite number of standard fonts on systems that = support emacs. >=20 > Unfortunately, the last sentence is in general incorrect. The reality > is that no font (at least none that I know of) supports all of > Unicode, so we will need to have several fonts from which to select. > And that is tricky if you want the result work on all platforms. I understand that. So allow me to get back to my original issue, it's a repetition of what = I've written already but please bear with me. 65 (#o101, #x41, ?A) is perfect Not so long ago I had 1114111 (#o4177777, #x10ffff, ?=F4=8F=BF=BF ) and it was fine, because the glitch at the end meant to me that the font = did not cover that code point. I've known that for a long time. Now I have=20 1114111 (#o4177777, #x10ffff) And I even have 232 (#o350, #xe8) even though 232 is clearly covered by my default fonts. The issue here is that I can't know for sure that there is a = corresponding glyph or not. For "discoverability" (or "cognitive gap reduction") purposes, I'd = rather have something like 1114111 (#o4177777, #x10ffff, t) 232 (#o350, #xe8, t) or something similar where t is the value of characterp for that integer = when the integer is above the value of = eval-expression-print-maximum-character. That way I *know* when an integer is a character and when it is not. And = I can find ways to look for it separately. Would that break things ? Jean-Christophe Helary ----------------------------------------------- http://mac4translators.blogspot.com @brandelune