Re: delete ligature support for Arabic "la" from the less(1) command line

Hi Ingo, Thanks for your effort in unicode support. I hope my feedback as a native Persian would be helpful. Ingo Schwarze wrote: > If i understand correctly, xterm(1) does indeed have that problem. > I prepared a test file that contains, in this order, > > - some Latin characters > - the

Re: delete ligature support for Arabic "la" from the less(1) command line

Hello Mohammadreza, Mohammadreza Abdollahzadeh wrote on Sun, Sep 01, 2019 at 09:40:16AM +0430: > Persian is my native language and I think that the major problem that > all RTL (Right-To-Left) languages like Persian and Arabic currentlly suffer > from is the lack of BiDi (Bidirectionality)

Re: delete ligature support for Arabic "la" from the less(1) command line

Hi Ingo, Persian is my native language and I think that the major problem that all RTL (Right-To-Left) languages like Persian and Arabic currentlly suffer from is the lack of BiDi (Bidirectionality) support in console and terminal environment like xterm(1). KDE konsole(1) support bidi and that's

Re: delete ligature support for Arabic "la" from the less(1) command line

Ingo Schwarze wrote: > I have no idea how many of those work in konsole(1) - but i'm sure > none of those, except the four LAM WITH ALEF discussed here, work > with less(1), so i think support for LAM WITH ALEF provided no value > in the first place. The way it is implemented, with an ad-hoc

delete ligature support for Arabic "la" from the less(1) command line

Hi, i have to admit that i am neither able to speak nor to write nor to understand the Arabic language nor the Arabic script, but here is my current, probably incomplete understanding of what our less(1) program is trying to do with Arabic ligatures. If somebody is reading this who is able to

Re: less(1): `!' command

On Fri, Dec 22 2017, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2017/12/22 19:47, Nicholas Marriott wrote: >> I don't think we should bring ! back. >> >> I wanted to remove v and | (and some other stuff) shortly afterwards, but >> several people objected. >> >> I did suggest having a

Re: less(1): `!' command

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 22:21:12 +, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2017/12/22 19:47, Nicholas Marriott wrote: > > I don't think we should bring ! back. > > > > I wanted to remove v and | (and some other stuff) shortly afterwards, but > > several people objected. > > > > I did suggest having a

Re: less(1): `!' command

On December 22, 2017 11:21:12 PM GMT+01:00, Stuart Henderson wrote: >On 2017/12/22 19:47, Nicholas Marriott wrote: >> I don't think we should bring ! back. >> >> I wanted to remove v and | (and some other stuff) shortly afterwards, >but >> several people objected. >> >>

Re: less(1): `!' command

On 2017/12/22 19:47, Nicholas Marriott wrote: > I don't think we should bring ! back. > > I wanted to remove v and | (and some other stuff) shortly afterwards, but > several people objected. > > I did suggest having a lightweight less in base for most people and adding > the full upstream less

Re: less(1): `!' command

I don't think we should bring ! back. I wanted to remove v and | (and some other stuff) shortly afterwards, but several people objected. I did suggest having a lightweight less in base for most people and adding the full upstream less to ports for the stuff we don't want to maintain (like we do

Re: less(1): `!' command

On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 21:52:44 +, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 19:39:27 +, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > > On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 18:13:16 +, Jiri B wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 04:55:44PM +, kshe wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > Would a patch to

Re: less(1): `!' command

> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 19:39:27 +, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 18:13:16 +, Jiri B wrote: > > > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 04:55:44PM +, kshe wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Would a patch to bring back the `!' command to less(1) be accepted? > > > > > The > >

Re: less(1): `!' command

On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 19:39:27 +, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 18:13:16 +, Jiri B wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 04:55:44PM +, kshe wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Would a patch to bring back the `!' command to less(1) be accepted? The > > > > commit message for

Re: less(1): `!' command

> > Would a patch to bring back the `!' command to less(1) be accepted? The > > commit message for its removal explains that ^Z should be used instead, > > but that obviously does not work if less(1) is run from something else > > than an interactive shell, for example when reading manual pages

Re: less(1): `!' command

> On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 18:13:16 +, Jiri B wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 04:55:44PM +, kshe wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Would a patch to bring back the `!' command to less(1) be accepted? The > > > commit message for its removal explains that ^Z should be used instead, > > > but that

Re: less(1): `!' command

On Sat, 16 Dec 2017 18:13:16 +, Jiri B wrote: > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 04:55:44PM +, kshe wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Would a patch to bring back the `!' command to less(1) be accepted? The > > commit message for its removal explains that ^Z should be used instead, > > but that obviously does

Re: less(1): `!' command

On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 04:55:44PM +, kshe wrote: > Hi, > > Would a patch to bring back the `!' command to less(1) be accepted? The > commit message for its removal explains that ^Z should be used instead, > but that obviously does not work if less(1) is run from something else > than an

less(1): `!' command

Hi, Would a patch to bring back the `!' command to less(1) be accepted? The commit message for its removal explains that ^Z should be used instead, but that obviously does not work if less(1) is run from something else than an interactive shell, for example when reading manual pages from a vi(1)