From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: lax matching is not a great default behavior Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 01:27:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <6741424b-fb48-48d1-a2fe-a5b755373c46@default> References: <> <<83twnxfi0h.fsf@gnu.org>> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1449307660 12683 80.91.229.3 (5 Dec 2015 09:27:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 09:27:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jwiegley@gmail.com, per@starback.se, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii , Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 05 10:27:27 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1a597n-0004D0-4t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2015 10:27:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45622 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a597m-00085i-89 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2015 04:27:26 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42969) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a597a-00080j-Vw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2015 04:27:16 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a597Z-0006Tp-Sy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2015 04:27:14 -0500 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:34674) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a597U-0006TW-3p; Sat, 05 Dec 2015 04:27:08 -0500 Original-Received: from userv0021.oracle.com (userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id tB59R64O026483 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 5 Dec 2015 09:27:06 GMT Original-Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by userv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tB59R5GC000751 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 5 Dec 2015 09:27:05 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0017.oracle.com (abhmp0017.oracle.com [141.146.116.23]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tB59R4rU017127; Sat, 5 Dec 2015 09:27:05 GMT In-Reply-To: <<83twnxfi0h.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6691.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 141.146.126.69 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:195918 Archived-At: > > > > Agreed. And neither is it folding of diacriticals, because > > > > there are also ad hoc foldings (e.g., quote marks). And there > > > > will likely be more to come. It is, in fact, a hodge podge of > > > > foldings - pretty much all of the various char foldings provided > > > > by Emacs so far, except for letter case. > > > > > > Actually, it's not a hodge-podge at all. Barring any user-level > > > customizations, it can be formally defined (and has been defined > > > elsewhere) what is and what isn't folded. > > > > Whether it is formally defined or not does not answer the > > question about the name to use for Emacs users. >=20 > "Character folding" is the accepted terminology for this, we didn't > invent it. Likewise "character sequence equivalence". I've already agreed (from the beginning) that "character folding" is the right term for Emacs to use. And that speaking of character equivalences is also appropriate. (There has been some talk of adding multi-character string equivalences, but even if we match strings instead of just chars, speaking of "character foldings" makes sense to me.) I mentioned "ad hoc" character equivalences because I didn't think that the quotation-mark equivalences we've added are included in any of the Unicode equivalences (whether "canonically equivalent" or "compatible"). Are you saying that they are so included? And that the equivalences that Emacs will use are _all_ of those defined by Unicode? If not, then I'd still say that Emacs does character folding, but _some_ character folding; a certain kind of character folding. And AFAIK we don't have a specific term that characterizes just the folding we do. (Which is OK.) And we _will_ have "user-level customizations" - user-defined equivalence classes, in the future (I hope). IOW, more ad hoc foldings to come. We will have our - Emacs's - character folding, which won't map one-to-one onto Unicode equivalences. (Unless I'm mistaken about the quote-mark equivalences, this is already the case.) But again, "character folding" is the best term I've heard mentioned for what Emacs does. We need not use it always in exactly the same sense as Unicode. > We are not changing the default. We introduced a new feature, and > this discussion is whether that feature should or shouldn't be turned > on by default. There's no previous default here. Hm. That sounds close to gobbledygook, to me. Turned on by default would mean a changed default behavior: the behavior you get without doing anything (toggling, customizing, coding) would be different, new, never seen before by Emacs users. There was no such _choice_ before, so the "default" matching behavior until Emacs 25 was the only matching behavior, but if that's your point, in claiming that turning this new behavior on from the outset would not be changing the default behavior, then I'd say that being that pedantic is, well, a bit silly. Yes, users will now have a choice. Should they need to do something (e.g. toggle) to get the new behavior or not? That's the question. You say no; I think yes, a priori - unless there are some good reasons otherwise. > We have enough time to decide about the default for the release. > Hopefully, we will have more data then than we have now, and the > decision will be more informed one. Agreed. And _then_ we can entertain reasons to change the "default" (initial) behavior.