In article <87d3ts5l1u.fsf@kobe.laptop>, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> writes:

> > Should we also modify the greek-postfix rules to include "<;" and ">;"
> > for the same?

> Something like this perhaps?
[...]
>  (quail-define-package
>   "greek-postfix" "GreekPost" "$B&7(B" nil
> @@ -1419,7 +1421,9 @@ e.g.
>   ("i:;" ?$(D&v(B)
>   ("i;:" ?$(D&v(B)
>   ("y:;" ?$(D&{(B)
> - ("y;:" ?$(D&{(B))
> + ("y;:" ?$(D&{(B)
> + ("<;" ?,A+(B)
> + (">;" ?,A;(B))
 
I'm not sure.  In many Latin prefix methods, "~<" is used
for ",A+(B", but in Latin prefix methods, "<<" is used for ",A+(B".
It seems that this asymmetricness has some meaning.  Isn't
it more convenient also for greek-postfix to use "<<"
provided that there's no standard for it.

---
Kenichi Handa
handa@m17n.org