Improving input-methods docs

Improving input-methods docs

[Rusi]

I see (info "(elisp)input methods")
that in emacs including 25, docs are still at

| How to define input methods is not yet documented in this manual, but here we
| describe how to use them.

Is there something I can do (within my capacity!) to move this forward?
[Maybe re-ask this on emacs-devel?]

Re: Improving input-methods docs

[Stefan Monnier]

> I see (info "(elisp)input methods")
> that in emacs including 25, docs are still at

> | How to define input methods is not yet documented in this manual,
> | but here we describe how to use them.

> Is there something I can do (within my capacity!) to move this forward?

Start to document what you know?  Or try to document what you think
should be there, and if you don't know what to write because you don't
know how it works, then ask on emacs-devel.


        Stefan

Improving input-methods docs

[Rustom Mody]

Stefan Monnier wrote  (on gnu.emacs.help list):
> Rusi Mody wrote:
> > I see (info "(elisp)input methods")
> > that in emacs including 25, docs are still at
> >
> > | How to define input methods is not yet documented in this manual,
> > | but here we describe how to use them.
> >
> > Is there something I can do (within my capacity!) to move this forward?

> Start to document what you know?  Or try to document what you think
> should be there, and if you don't know what to write because you don't
> know how it works, then ask on emacs-devel.

Ok
First a basic question:
When I do describe-input-method
I see a lot of stuff 'described'
However unlike describe-function|variable etc that links to the relevant stuff
here there is no such.

Is there any way to get to the input method (source) from an activated
input-method?

Strangely even describe-key shows (say) self-insert-command for "\" in
tex-input-method
which seems strange if not plain wrong.
[Yeah I ran grep on the elisp sources and found a quail and an international
and ... Just asking if there is easier way to not get lost]

Re: Improving input-methods docs

[Chris Feng]

> Stefan Monnier wrote  (on gnu.emacs.help list):
>> Rusi Mody wrote:
>> > I see (info "(elisp)input methods")
>> > that in emacs including 25, docs are still at
>> >
>> > | How to define input methods is not yet documented in this manual,
>> > | but here we describe how to use them.
>> >
>> > Is there something I can do (within my capacity!) to move this forward?
>
>> Start to document what you know?  Or try to document what you think
>> should be there, and if you don't know what to write because you don't
>> know how it works, then ask on emacs-devel.

AFAIK to define a new input method it only requires one to register it
to `input-method-alist' and feed `input-method-function' a customized
function.  But it seems most input methods in Emacs are defined as
Quail packages, so an intro to `quail-define-package' (and perhaps
other parts of Quail) may also be helpful.

> Ok
> First a basic question:
> When I do describe-input-method
> I see a lot of stuff 'described'
> However unlike describe-function|variable etc that links to the relevant stuff
> here there is no such.
>
> Is there any way to get to the input method (source) from an activated
> input-method?

You can find most input methods in 'lisp/leim/leim-list.el' as they're
registered there.  For example, there's a form for the 'TeX' input
method indicating that it's actually a Quail package named
'quail/latin-ltx', so its source is in 'lisp/leim/quail/latin-ltx.el'.

> Strangely even describe-key shows (say) self-insert-command for "\" in
> tex-input-method
> which seems strange if not plain wrong.

IIUC input methods do not create new key bindings but translate
characters, so `describe-key' doesn't make much sense here.

Re: Improving input-methods docs

[Rustom Mody]

Thanks Chris

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Chris Feng <chris.w.feng@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Stefan Monnier wrote  (on gnu.emacs.help list):
>>> Rusi Mody wrote:
>>> > I see (info "(elisp)input methods")
>>> > that in emacs including 25, docs are still at
>>> >
>>> > | How to define input methods is not yet documented in this manual,
>>> > | but here we describe how to use them.
>>> >
>>> > Is there something I can do (within my capacity!) to move this forward?
>>
>>> Start to document what you know?  Or try to document what you think
>>> should be there, and if you don't know what to write because you don't
>>> know how it works, then ask on emacs-devel.
>
> AFAIK to define a new input method it only requires one to register it
> to `input-method-alist' and feed `input-method-function' a customized
> function.  But it seems most input methods in Emacs are defined as
> Quail packages, so an intro to `quail-define-package' (and perhaps
> other parts of Quail) may also be helpful.

What's quail?
Why is it there? [or] What's its relation to (define)-input-method?
Sorry if I seem obtuse but I gather there is a close relation but I
cant make out what...

Re: Improving input-methods docs

[Chris Feng]

> What's quail?
> Why is it there? [or] What's its relation to (define)-input-method?
> Sorry if I seem obtuse but I gather there is a close relation but I
> cant make out what...

Quail is an implementation of Emacs input method
(`quail-input-method') without concrete rules on how to do the
translation (they are provided by Quail packages instead).  You can
think of it as an input method framework, I think.

Re: Improving input-methods docs

[Rustom Mody]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1420 bytes --]

Just resending since the mail to (earlier address of) Kenichi Handa bounced



On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Chris
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Chris Feng <chris.w.feng@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Stefan Monnier wrote  (on gnu.emacs.help list):
> >>> Rusi Mody wrote:
> >>> > I see (info "(elisp)input methods")
> >>> > that in emacs including 25, docs are still at
> >>> >
> >>> > | How to define input methods is not yet documented in this manual,
> >>> > | but here we describe how to use them.
> >>> >
> >>> > Is there something I can do (within my capacity!) to move this
> forward?
> >>
> >>> Start to document what you know?  Or try to document what you think
> >>> should be there, and if you don't know what to write because you don't
> >>> know how it works, then ask on emacs-devel.
> >
> > AFAIK to define a new input method it only requires one to register it
> > to `input-method-alist' and feed `input-method-function' a customized
> > function.  But it seems most input methods in Emacs are defined as
> > Quail packages, so an intro to `quail-define-package' (and perhaps
> > other parts of Quail) may also be helpful.
>
> What's quail?
> Why is it there? [or] What's its relation to (define)-input-method?
> Sorry if I seem obtuse but I gather there is a close relation but I
> cant make out what...
>

Also the relation of mule and quail??

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2250 bytes --]

Re: Improving input-methods docs

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 08:23:48 +0530
> 
> When I do describe-input-method
> I see a lot of stuff 'described'
> However unlike describe-function|variable etc that links to the relevant stuff
> here there is no such.
> 
> Is there any way to get to the input method (source) from an activated
> input-method?

How about starting with a change that would include in the description
the place where the input method is defined?  I think this would be a
valuable documentation feature.  Currently, you need to grep the
relevant sources for the name of the input method.

> Strangely even describe-key shows (say) self-insert-command for "\" in
> tex-input-method
> which seems strange if not plain wrong.

It's not wrong: Emacs doesn't know better.  But maybe there should be
some addition that is related to the currently active input method.

Re: Improving input-methods docs

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 12:20:07 +0530
> Cc: handa@gnu.org, Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org>,
> 	emacs-devel <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
> 
> Also the relation of mule and quail??

Almost none.  Quail deals with input of non-ASCII characters that your
keyboard doesn't support.  By contrast, MULE deals with non-ASCII
characters sent encoded by your keyboard.  IOW, they complement each
other.