Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> > it be very common to deconstruct such ligatures, like → into ->?
>> > 
>> > No, I don't think so.  Why would this be common?
>> 
>> I thought it would be the default. Emacs shows →, and you can put the
>> point either before (|→), in the middle (-|>), or after (→|).
>
> Doesn't sound as a useful default to me.  It could be an optional
> feature, though.

To me it sounds like a good default.

>> Here's a fairly common case: when writing html or XML, you may type
>> <, then >, then press C-b and type the tag name; or you may use < and
>> a paredit-like setup that inserts the > automatically.  If the font
>> has a ligature for <> and you can't put the point in the middle, this
>> breaks.  Same for || — the notation |x| { … } is used for lambdas in
>> some languages; if you type || then try to move the point back inside
>> the composed || glyph it won't work.
>
> Sounds like a bug or misfeature that needs a solution, not necessarily
> the one that's been proposed here.  For example, how about a special
> insert command that would disable ligation with the character it
> inserts?

I use the attached self-written ligature.el (Eli, you've helped me with
that some months back).  That's all nice but sometimes I too have the
problem that I want to edit the name of a "private" function/variable
foo--do-stuff and cannot move point inside the double-dash because it is
composed as one char.  As a little cure, I disable ligatures in the
minibuffer where I absolutely need to do completion stuff like
foo-<TAB>-bar.

Another case is where when inserting < automatically inserts >
immediately giving a <> diamond where I cannot move into.

A special insert command will not help here because it is already
inserted.

Bye,
Tassilo