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, 27 Feb 2016 11:30:49 +0200 Message-ID: <83bn72cxfa.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83io1jpt4u.fsf@gnu.org> <87povqhj25.fsf@gnus.org> <87povqe5tr.fsf@gnus.org> <87ziuta4l4.fsf@gnus.org> <87y4adzcia.fsf@gnus.org> <83twl0k1k5.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2lvi99c.fsf@gnu.org> <83oab6gfiw.fsf@gnu.org> <878u29x8vl.fsf@fastmail.fm> <83ziuncpch.fsf@gnu.org> <83fuwecztu.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1456565497 7348 80.91.229.3 (27 Feb 2016 09:31:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 09:31:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: joostkremers@fastmail.fm, larsi@gnus.org, lokedhs@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "John Wiegley" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 27 10:31:36 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 1aZbDs-0002Ep-1q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 10:31:36 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54111 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aZbDr-0006Ag-Hg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 04:31:35 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52912) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aZbDf-0006AX-4T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 04:31:24 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aZbDd-0007g4-2b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 04:31:23 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:42723) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aZbDY-0007cB-PG; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 04:31:16 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4227 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aZbDR-0003M6-8V; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 04:31:09 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from John Wiegley on Sat, 27 Feb 2016 00:58:02 -0800) 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:200710 Archived-At: > From: John Wiegley > Cc: joostkremers@fastmail.fm, rms@gnu.org, lokedhs@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 00:58:02 -0800 > > Thank you for that summary. From that reading, it sounds like this will > require a fairly complex decision tree, to determine what should be folded > when based on the details of each particular country/language? I fail to see the complexity, but that's me. In particular, the first alternative (to have it disabled in certain locales) seems very simple to me. > And what about a Swedish speaker living in America who uses en_US because > that's what 90% of his text is in, who then wants to search some Swedish text? > Is it the locale that determines it, or something specific to the nature of > the text in each buffer? And how would Emacs know? I've asked these questions a lot in this discussion, and still the majority thinks that the locale in which Emacs is started should be used for the defaults. So you are in fact arguing with what the majority says, not with me. > Unless I'm not seeing the light at the end of this tunnel, this feature is > just not ready for prime-time as a default. There are too many unanswered > questions, and it sounds like none of them can be answered in the abstract for > every case. I have a feeling we'd be getting bug reports constantly from users > whose language contains details we never anticipated. Do we have a clear definition of what are the criteria for this feature to be "ready for prime-time as a default"? You are in effect saying that we will never be able to find good answers for those questions. We shouldn't be dismissing a good feature such as this one, which many users like, due to FUD-like arguments.