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: On language-dependent defaults for character-folding Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 19:58:39 +0200 Message-ID: <834mdc5w6o.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87mvr9wxqz.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87io1xwq1e.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87vb5wvzfz.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <87io1wt4cc.fsf@wanadoo.es> <8737syoima.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <871t8iu277.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83d1s28kvh.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3gis7sm.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83twle71xy.fsf@gnu.org> <87io1us0te.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83pow26svf.fsf@gnu.org> <87a8n5srbp.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83d1s17npz.fsf@gnu.org> <87oablfpn3.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <834mdd6llx.fsf@gnu.org> <7fbb8bc7-9a97-4bad-a103-a6690a35241d@default> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1455386344 15164 80.91.229.3 (13 Feb 2016 17:59:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:59:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, emacs-devel@gnu.org, juri@linkov.net To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 13 18:58:48 2016 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 1aUeT1-0005FU-Fy for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 18:58:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43824 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aUeT0-0005Sb-Oh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 12:58:46 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58507) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aUeSx-0005SM-SS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 12:58:44 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aUeSt-00067q-Sb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 12:58:43 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:58710) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aUeSt-00067m-Pf; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 12:58:39 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1367 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aUeSs-0007sA-Ty; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 12:58:39 -0500 In-reply-to: <7fbb8bc7-9a97-4bad-a103-a6690a35241d@default> (message from Drew Adams on Sat, 13 Feb 2016 09:20:39 -0800 (PST)) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:199893 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 09:20:39 -0800 (PST) > From: Drew Adams > Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > The implementation should really be on the C level, like the > > case-folding support. The current implementation isn't, and > > therefore has several disadvantages some of which were already > > pointed out (e.g., the regexp it uses that gets exposed in some > > situations and causes users to be surprised). > > I would like to see a list of the disadvantages laid out clearly. They were mentioned in the discussions since this feature was designed and till this day. I'm sorry, but I have no time for searching and summarizing them. It isn't easier for me than for anyone else, and doesn't require any specialized knowledge. > In general, I prefer that things be implemented in Lisp. > That leaves them far more open to Emacs users, and hence to > imagination and enhancement - which can often help Emacs > farther down the road. Not in this case. Search must be fast, it must support regular expressions and complex character transformations, all of which cannot be done well in Lisp, even if we expose buffer text to Lisp, something we don't have today. > Implementation in C makes great sense in some cases, but it > would help to see the detailed arguments (cases). These arguments were already given, you will find them in the archives. > The argument that a complex, not-user-friendly, under-the-covers > regexp might sometimes get exposed to users is OK, but it is not > really compelling (for me). Some users, in some case, might well > want to make use of such a regexp (e.g. tweaking it). Users should tweak tables that tell Emacs how to fold characters, they should not tweak the results of folding. Like they do (if they do) with case-tables today.