From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Richard M. Stallman" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Word syntax question Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 02:20:44 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87mygy0ybq.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87bpxd29ft.fsf@catnip.gol.com> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1224661897 1591 80.91.229.12 (22 Oct 2008 07:51:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:51:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: schwab@suse.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, miles@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 22 09:52:38 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KsYVr-0000FM-A7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:52:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33804 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KsYUl-0000Y8-My for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 03:51:07 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KsYUf-0000Vx-9P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 03:51:01 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KsYUc-0000Tc-Su for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 03:51:00 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54465 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KsYQE-00070d-7q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 03:46:26 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:35256) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KsYQE-0000mv-1q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 03:46:26 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1KsX5I-0002wE-3s; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 02:20:44 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Eli Zaretskii on Tue, 21 Oct 2008 19:21:29 +0200) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:104826 Archived-At: I agree. I think we should introduce a user option to control whether it stops on script boundaries or not, because sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. That is not a real solution. The right thing to do is a function of the case, not the user. Making each user specify an option according to which cases she typically encounters is not clean. It seems that we need a way to specify which kinds of script boundaries should be word boundaries, on designed to produce the results that users generally want, and which could be set up inside Emacs so that users don't have to change it.