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: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 17:25:11 +0200 Message-ID: <83d1s4bnag.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87mvr9wxqz.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87io1xwq1e.fsf@wanadoo.es> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1455117977 21327 80.91.229.3 (10 Feb 2016 15:26:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 15:26:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ofv@wanadoo.es, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: bruce.connor.am@gmail.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 10 16:26:15 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 1aTWeh-0006xE-SG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:26:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40148 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aTWee-0006qq-4s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:26:08 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55110) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aTWdy-0006RV-Sz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:25:27 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aTWdu-00075o-PD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:25:26 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:37991) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aTWdu-00075k-MI; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:25:22 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2645 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aTWdt-0007Wa-VI; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:25:22 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Artur Malabarba on Wed, 10 Feb 2016 02:18:03 +0000) 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:199696 Archived-At: > Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 02:18:03 +0000 > From: Artur Malabarba > Cc: emacs-devel > > > > I could be wrong, but I think you just defined all users. In the > > > Unicode standard used by Emacs, there are 5721 characters with a > > > “decomposition” property. Is there a user who is well-equiped to type > > > all of those characters? > > > > (And how many of those 5721 characters can be matched from a latin > > letter?) > > OK, I see what you meant. You do? I don't, because the answer to Óscar's question is: 376 if we count only canonical decompositions (which we must support, or users will hate us), and a whopping 1449 if we count compatibility decompositions as well. That's quite a few, I'd say, although AFAIR we don't find all of the compatibility decompositions under character folding, only some. Btw, from my POV, the ease of searching for characters not on my keyboard is not the main point of this feature. The main feature is to search for similar characters. (Of course, I don't mind if someone likes this for other reasons.) > Although currently Emacs does fold all decompositions by default, this is just temporary. We've said we would turn that off before release (and in fact I'll do that tomorrow (and ammend my post too)). We didn't say we will turn it off, we said we will _decide_ whether to turn it off. So please don't turn it off just yet, we are still collecting feedback. If anything, for now I counted more people who said they liked it than those who didn't (5 vs 9, by my count). I'm not saying we should already decide to leave it on, but turning it off is certainly premature. Less than two weeks have passed since the pretest began, there's no rush. Thanks.