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: lax matching is not a great default behavior Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 09:53:50 +0200 Message-ID: <83twnxfi0h.fsf@gnu.org> References: Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1449302060 773 80.91.229.3 (5 Dec 2015 07:54:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 07:54:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jwiegley@gmail.com, per@starback.se, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 05 08:54:11 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 1a57fW-0007e5-RS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2015 08:54:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44858 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a57fV-0007Sx-OF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2015 02:54:09 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49287) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a57fS-0007S5-2V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2015 02:54:07 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a57fO-0004w1-PI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2015 02:54:05 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:33868) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a57fO-0004vv-HS; Sat, 05 Dec 2015 02:54:02 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NYV00J00K29LP00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sat, 05 Dec 2015 09:54:01 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.94.185.246]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NYV00JSQKM0MX00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sat, 05 Dec 2015 09:54:01 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.166 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:195914 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 13:30:16 -0800 (PST) > From: Drew Adams > Cc: per@starback.se, jwiegley@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > > > No, because ignoring accents is just a small part of character > > > > folding. Please take a look at character-fold.el for the details. > > > > > > 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. "Character folding" is the accepted terminology for this, we didn't invent it. Likewise "character sequence equivalence". > > > Why not leave it off by default, for now? > > > > "Why not" is not a compelling argument, sorry. It cannot > > win the "why not" argument in the other direction. > > "Why change the default?" is precisely the question Emacs > dev generally asks itself. 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. > This has been stated more than once now by more than one > person. But you keep giving the argument that turning it > on for pretesting is beneficial. So it is. So turn it > on for pretesting, to get more feedback, and off for > the release. 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.