[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric? |
Date: |
Tue, 8 Sep 2015 14:00:24 -0700 (PDT) |
> > I disagree. When I search for "Müller" I want it to also match
> > "Muller" because some people (e.g., in French speaking countries) use
> > this as an approximation of the spelling.
>
> Are you suggesting that searching for ü should match u but not ú or ù?
I'm not speaking for Ulrich, but no, I am not suggesting that.
The proposal behind this thread is that when char folding is turned
ON, any char CHR in a given equivalence class would match any other
char in that class, when CHR is used in a search string.
So if char folding is on, you can find any of [eéèêæë] in the buffer
text using any of those chars in the search string, not just `e' in
the search string. None of them has a privileged role in the search
string.
To match only one of those folding-equivalent chars (e.g., only `e'
or `é'), you would turn OFF char folding and use that exact char in
the search string.
Char folding would be togglable, as now, using `M-s ''. The only
difference would be that when char folding is on, any of [eéèêæë]
would act the same way in a search string.
- RE: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, (continued)
- RE: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Drew Adams, 2015/09/09
- Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Richard Stallman, 2015/09/09
- RE: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Drew Adams, 2015/09/09
- Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Richard Stallman, 2015/09/09
- RE: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Drew Adams, 2015/09/09
- Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, David Kastrup, 2015/09/10
- RE: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Drew Adams, 2015/09/10
- Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Richard Stallman, 2015/09/10
- Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Juri Linkov, 2015/09/11
- Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Richard Stallman, 2015/09/08
- RE: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?,
Drew Adams <=
- Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Richard Stallman, 2015/09/09
- Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Ulrich Mueller, 2015/09/08
Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Richard Stallman, 2015/09/02
- RE: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Drew Adams, 2015/09/02
- Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/09/02
- Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Jean-Christophe Helary, 2015/09/02
- RE: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Drew Adams, 2015/09/02
- Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Richard Stallman, 2015/09/03
Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/09/02
Re: char equivalence classes in search - why not symmetric?, Jean-Christophe Helary, 2015/09/02