On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 09:19:04PM +0100, Philip Taylor wrote: > > > Khaled Hosny wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 08:52:38PM +0100, Philip Taylor wrote: > > >> Might it not be possible to resolve this by making the new behaviour > >> optional, using a new primitive for the purpose ? > > > > So this just penalizes the unlucky people who need to enable the special > > behaviour, I’d rather penalize everyone and have a consistent, if > > erratic in someways, behaviour. > > I do not understand. If system A performed function Y until now, yet > its designer/maintainer wishes it to perform function Y' henceforth, how > can those who wish to exploit Y' be /penalised/ by being asked to invoke > the operation specifically, rather than have it just happen and destroy > backwards compatibility ? I see no "penalty" at all, just allowing the > informed user to make an explicit choice between the two behaviours.
It is not possible (not with a reasonable effort anyway) to support both behaviours, so the option would boil down to having right-to-left “extension” enabled or not. Regards, Khaled -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex