The guillemets â, â,  and  should all be punctuation. The single
ones currently have word syntax, and the double ones are treated as
parens in latin-{1,5,9}.el.
Making Šand à a case pair in characters.el is clobbered by the entry
for code 255 in latin-1.el, which should presumably be removed.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The guillemets â, â,  and  should all be punctuation. The single
> ones currently have word syntax, and the double ones are treated as
> parens in latin-{1,5,9}.el.
As I don't use those characters, I don't know what is
cor
* Kenichi Handa (2005-03-09) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The guillemets â, â,  and  should all be punctuation. The single
>> ones currently have word syntax, and the double ones are treated as
>> parens in latin-{1,5,9}.el.
>
> As I don't
>>> The guillemets â, â,  and  should all be punctuation. The single
>>> ones currently have word syntax, and the double ones are treated as
>>> parens in latin-{1,5,9}.el.
>>
>> As I don't use those characters, I don't know what is
>> correct. But, it seems that they are used as a pair; isn't
Kenichi Handa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As I don't use those characters, I don't know what is
> correct. But, it seems that they are used as a pair; isn't
> it convenient if we give them paren syntax?
No. The complete set of valid non-ASCII paren pairs from Unicode is
already in characters.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kenichi Handa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> As I don't use those characters, I don't know what is
>> correct. But, it seems that they are used as a pair; isn't
>> it convenient if we give them paren syntax?
> No. The co
Kenichi Handa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Maybe a workaround is to give them "generic string fence" syntax (aka "|")?
[That hasn't got to me.]
> It seems to be a good idea. Are there any objection?
That isn't correct. There is a comment somewh
>>> Maybe a workaround is to give them "generic string fence" syntax (aka "|")?
> [That hasn't got to me.]
>> It seems to be a good idea. Are there any objection?
> That isn't correct. There is a comment somewhere in the doc or code
> about quotation marks intentionally _not_ having string synta
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kenichi Handa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Maybe a workaround is to give them "generic string fence" syntax (aka "|")?
> [That hasn't got to me.]
>> It seems to be a go
>>> Maybe a workaround is to give them "generic string fence" syntax (aka "|")?
>> It seems to be a good idea. Are there any objection?
> That isn't correct. There is a comment somewhere in the doc or code
> about quotation marks intentionally _not_ having string syntax in text
> modes or globall
On Thu, Mar 10 2005, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> Anyhow, guillemets are not always used balanced; Hart's Rules
>> discusses that, for instance.
>
>> Why do people think the guillemets are special cases which shouldn't
>> be treated like other quotes, or how Unicode says?
>
> I've never seen guillemet
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:26:56 +0100, Reiner Steib
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've never seen guillemets used alone.
>
> Occasionally people use `»' as a citation prefix in mail and news
> instead of `>'.
Sure, but I think that sort of thing is basically an obscure special
case, and really shou
Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've never seen guillemets used alone. They always come in pairs in my
> experience,
But your experience isn't universal. It's obviously not wide enough
to override what Unicode and other authorities document.
> so it'd be convenient to be able to u
Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> That isn't correct. There is a comment somewhere in the doc or code
>> about quotation marks intentionally _not_ having string syntax in text
>> modes or globally.
>
> Which comment in which code?
I don't know, or I'd have referenced it. I guess rms
Kenichi Handa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't join this discussion anymore because I have no
> knowledge about the usage of those characters.
But you don't need such knowledge personally -- it is written down,
especially in Unicode. I certainly don't know much of the languages
I've provide
>> I've never seen guillemets used alone. They always come in pairs in my
>> experience,
> But your experience isn't universal.
I never claimed it is. But unless using string-syntax for those things
breaks more cases (or in more serious ways) than not using string-syntax, it
makes sense to choos
>>> That isn't correct. There is a comment somewhere in the doc or code
>>> about quotation marks intentionally _not_ having string syntax in text
>>> modes or globally.
>>
>> Which comment in which code?
> I don't know, or I'd have referenced it. I guess rms can comment on
> the intent.
I gue
>> so it'd be convenient to be able to use M-C-f and M-C-b to jump
>> over them. Just like the " quote, actually.
> Yes, offhand I can think of four uses of " that aren't as balanced
> quotes, and again Unicode says it has punctuation syntax.
As Stefan says, we choose the syntax
You just need to ensure that Emacs follows what standards and usage
documents say, at least where that's possible within implementation
constraints.
That is not the way we deal with standards in the GNU Project.
We don't "ensure" that GNU Programs follow standards.
We treat standards a
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As Stefan says, we choose the syntax for each character in any given
> mode that is most convenient for the users.
The issue is the default syntax for characters. Obviously programming
language modes should use syntax that fits the language definiti
Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I've never seen guillemets used alone. They always come in pairs in my
>>> experience,
>> But your experience isn't universal.
>
> I never claimed it is. But unless using string-syntax for those things
> breaks more cases (or in more serious ways) t
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That is not the way we deal with standards in the GNU Project.
> We don't "ensure" that GNU Programs follow standards.
> We treat standards as suggestions, and we follow them when and if
> that seems like the best way to make GNU useful.
Of course it
There are usually good reasons to follow standards. That's why we
usually follow them. But that's not the issue I'm talking about.
What I'm telling you is that the standards are not authorities. We do
not *have to* follow them. Arguments that presume that the standard
is an authority we must o
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I'm telling you is that the standards are not authorities.
They obviously are authorities when they define the charsets Emacs
wants to implement, at least. As far as I know, Unicode is the single
authority on the world's character usage, as far
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unicode says how guillemets are used as a matter of fact, which you
> can verify. It's manifestly wrong for single ones to have word syntax
> and double ones to have paren syntax and I wish I'd just changed it
> when I had th
They obviously are authorities when they define the charsets Emacs
wants to implement, at least. As far as I know, Unicode is the single
authority on the world's character usage, as far as it goes.
We are running into an ambiguity in the term "authority". When you
first spoke about t
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We are running into an ambiguity in the term "authority". When you
> first spoke about this, your words appeared to use the meaning "He Who
> Must Be Obeyed".
I'm taken aback that you'd think that.
> Now, however, it seems you're using the word to
Kenichi Handa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unicode doesn't say which syntax a character should have in
> Emacs.
I know it doesn't in detail -- the Emacs syntax codes don't actually
map directly to the Unicode properties. Categories can do that if
appropriate.
> Even if we give guillemets "gene
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kenichi Handa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Unicode doesn't say which syntax a character should have in
>> Emacs.
> I know it doesn't in detail -- the Emacs syntax codes don't actually
> map directly to the Unicode propert
> We are running into an ambiguity in the term "authority". When you
> first spoke about this, your words appeared to use the meaning "He Who
> Must Be Obeyed".
I'm taken aback that you'd think that.
Several of the things you've said about Unicode in this discussion
seemed to pre
30 matches
Mail list logo
