Re: [emacs-bidi] Treatment of LRE,RLE,LRO,RLO,PDF,LRM,RLM

[Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org>]

In article <83wrnz5fac.fsf@gnu.org>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> > But, as I wrote before, I'm still hesitating over which is
> > better; keeping glyphless-char-display separate from display
> > table, or integrating that functionality to display table.

> What are the pros and cons, which make you hesitate?

Both glyphless-char-display and display table control the
displaying of each character.  I think such a control should
be done by a single mechanism.  At least it will benefit
users in a long run.

But, the biggest concern is about the backward
compatibility.  Currently, a display table element is nil or
vector of characters.  If there's a code that assumes that a
non-nil element is a vector of characters, it will be
broken.  Next, a display table is not inherited.  So, if
buffer-display-table or a window-specific display is set,
standard-display-table is not looked up.  At last, there are
several standard-display-XXX functions
(e.g. standard-display-8bit).  At the moment, I don't know
how to make the functionality of
glyphless-char-display-control go with them.

> > I agree on exempting TAB and NL from c0-control group.

> Done.

Thank you.

---
Kenichi Handa
handa@m17n.org