[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#69968: Case-folding of Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#69968: Case-folding of Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols |
Date: |
Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:45:14 +0200 |
> From: Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net>
> Cc: 69968@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:09:10 +0200
>
> >> I wonder why case-folding is not supported for letters from
> >> the Unicode block "Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols":
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_Alphanumeric_Symbols
> >
> > These are not letters, they are symbols. And letter-case is not
> > defined for symbols.
>
> ππ° πΊπ°πΆ π³π¦π’πππΊ π΅π©πͺπ―π¬ π΅π©πͺπ΄ π΅π¦πΉπ΅ πͺπ΄ π―π°π΅ πΈπ³πͺπ΅π΅π¦π― πΈπͺπ΅π© π‘ππ©π©ππ§π¨?
What does that prove? The fact that the glyphs look like normal
letters doesn't mean they are. Like β΅ and βΆ are not Hebrew letters
they look like (and have left-to-right directionality). And similarly
with πΈ, πΈ and other mathematical symbols in that block aren't Arabic
letters, and in particular don't shape like Arabic letters.
> >> Case-folding is already supported for some characters from other
> >> Unicode blocks such e.g. FULLWIDTH LATIN CAPITAL LETTERs,
> >> CIRCLED LATIN CAPITAL LETTERs, etc.
> >
> > That's because UnicodeData.txt defines their letter-case conversions.
>
> Ok, then it's very strange that the Unicode standard doesn't define
> letter-case conversions for other letters. But what can we do.
We can define case-conversions for them if we decide to do so.
Moreover, Lisp programs which for some reason need that can do that
themselves, even if by default there are no case-conversions defined
for them. The question is when and why is this needed?
> >> But e.g. PARENTHESIZED LATIN CAPITAL LETTERs are missing too.
> >> What is worse is that in Emacs β doesn't have even a word syntax
> >> like its counterpart π.
> >
> > I think the fact that π has the word syntax might be a mistake. These
> > are both symbols, so why would we want them to have the word syntax?
>
> Because they look like letters with diacritics.
Not sure I agree.