From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Ligatures Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 05:25:17 +0300 Message-ID: <83o8qk8xv6.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20200517124125.000013a4@web.de> <97C7EAB7-10AB-4702-ABC8-EB6C1C50ABDB@gnu.org> <20200517165953.000044d2@web.de> <83lflqblp0.fsf@gnu.org> <83ftbybio3.fsf@gnu.org> <83zha69xs2.fsf@gnu.org> <83367x9qeq.fsf@gnu.org> <83y2pp88lw.fsf@gnu.org> <83pnb182ce.fsf@gnu.org> <65807546-ed40-a175-640d-9da7a1548d8a@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="91384"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?utf-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit-Claudel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue May 19 04:26:01 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jarxA-000Nfo-EY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 19 May 2020 04:26:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46994 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jarx9-0007Qw-Dv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 18 May 2020 22:25:59 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44178) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jarwf-0006wR-P2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 18 May 2020 22:25:29 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:41546) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jarwf-0001db-85; Mon, 18 May 2020 22:25:29 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4387 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jarwV-0002K3-Ed; Mon, 18 May 2020 22:25:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <65807546-ed40-a175-640d-9da7a1548d8a@gmail.com> (message from =?utf-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Pit-Claudel on Mon, 18 May 2020 15:44:01 -0400) 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:250844 Archived-At: > From: Clément Pit-Claudel > Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 15:44:01 -0400 > > > The idea is that this is used only rarely. Most use cases don't need > > to deconstruct a ligature that way; after all, that's what ligatures > > are for. > > In an earlier thread, you mentioned programming font ligatures — wouldn't it be very common to deconstruct such ligatures, like → into ->? No, I don't think so. Why would this be common? > Maybe the effect wouldn't be jarring with monospaced fonts, but for these the simple approach of subdividing the glyph works nicely too. It might work in some simple cases, but I wonder what gains would that give the users. It sounds very unusual to me to do something like that, and I don't think we ever heard any such complaints until now, although prettify-symbols-mode exists for several years.