From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marcin Borkowski Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Questions about isearch Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:35:10 +0100 Message-ID: <87d1uwla0h.fsf@mbork.pl> References: <83lh9lx6oi.fsf@gnu.org> <87egfdant7.fsf@gmx.us> <83h9k8vig7.fsf@gnu.org> <83oaegtqxq.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1448573750 19911 80.91.229.3 (26 Nov 2015 21:35:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 21:35:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Per =?utf-8?Q?Starb=C3=A4ck?= , sb@dod.no, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 26 22:35:40 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 1a24Ca-0002VR-1d for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:35:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53238 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a24Cc-0000UJ-2o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:35:42 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52355) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a24CX-0000Tn-T7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:35:38 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a24CW-0000ar-OY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:35:37 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.mojserwer.eu ([2a01:5e00:2:52::8]:41801) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a24CR-0000aG-Pd; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:35:31 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.mojserwer.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E5638F2016; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:35:20 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.mojserwer.eu Original-Received: from mail.mojserwer.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.mojserwer.eu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y7LfpguuN04o; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:35:11 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from localhost (unknown [109.232.24.28]) by mail.mojserwer.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E65C18F200B; Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:35:10 +0100 (CET) User-agent: mu4e 0.9.13; emacs 25.0.50.1 In-reply-to: <83oaegtqxq.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a01:5e00:2:52::8 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:195321 Archived-At: On 2015-11-26, at 22:02, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > And what about etc/HELLO? what language is it in? [...] And, as I mentioned a few times in various places, there is another case (and unlike etc/HELLO, it actually happens IRL): bibliographies of scientific papers. It is not uncommon for such a bibliography to contain titles/journal names in various languages. (Probably the most extreme example might be "Funkcialaj Ekvacioj", a Japanese journal with an Esperanto title and mostly or only English papers.) AFAIK (though I'm not 100% sure), standard LaTeX tools (i.e., BibLaTeX) do not support such a situation (which is bad, since it is really needed to have different hyphenation rules for different parts of these entries - be glad that Emacs doesn't have to care about those!). Another LaTeX bibliography tool, amsrefs, handles them well; but it's not very popular. For a less extreme example, consider e.g. Latin phrases in the midst of an English text; not uncommon, for instance in law texts (but not only there). > So I think a per-buffer language attribute is the wrong way to go. We > need a finer granularity. Yes. OTOH, my feeling is that a solution which would be correct 85% of the time is better than no solution. Best, --=20 Marcin Borkowski http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/pl/Marcin_Borkowski Wydzia=C5=82 Matematyki i Informatyki Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza