[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior |
Date: |
Sat, 05 Dec 2015 13:15:18 +0200 |
> Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 01:27:03 -0800 (PST)
> From: Drew Adams <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
>
> > > Whether it is formally defined or not does not answer the
> > > question about the name to use for Emacs users.
> >
> > "Character folding" is the accepted terminology for this, we didn't
> > invent it. Likewise "character sequence equivalence".
>
> I've already agreed (from the beginning) that "character
> folding" is the right term for Emacs to use. And that
> speaking of character equivalences is also appropriate.
>
> (There has been some talk of adding multi-character string
> equivalences, but even if we match strings instead of just
> chars, speaking of "character foldings" makes sense to me.)
Yes, multi-character string equivalences are supported.
> I mentioned "ad hoc" character equivalences because I didn't
> think that the quotation-mark equivalences we've added are
> included in any of the Unicode equivalences (whether
> "canonically equivalent" or "compatible").
Indeed, we added equivalences for quote characters that are not
defined by Unicode database. I think that these equivalences should
just be the initial value for the user-customizable part of the
feature. And I don't think these few additions justify new
terminology, the existing one still describes even that.
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, (continued)
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/12/05
- RE: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Drew Adams, 2015/12/04
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/12/04
- RE: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Drew Adams, 2015/12/04
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, David Kastrup, 2015/12/04
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Artur Malabarba, 2015/12/04
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, David Kastrup, 2015/12/04
- RE: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Drew Adams, 2015/12/04
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/12/05
- RE: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Drew Adams, 2015/12/05
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- RE: lax matching is not a great default behavior, Drew Adams, 2015/12/05
- Re: lax matching is not a great default behavior, John Wiegley, 2015/12/05