[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: euro symbol
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: euro symbol |
Date: |
Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:20:57 +0200 |
> From: Francesco Potorti` <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:07:32 +0200
>
> In fact it *is* a trivial change (it just adds a new input method for a
> single character in a single national language) that does not break
> anything that existed before. I think it is also a good change, and
> that it is better than before, given that no Italian latin-9 method
> curently exists.
I think it introduces a bug: you promise the user to insert a Euro,
but in fact insert a different character.
> By the way, it's me who wrote the italian-postfix and
> italian-alt-postfix methods, which together with the reasons above is
> why I dared to commit the changes without asking.
>From my experience, Mule-related changes are seldom simple, and it's
best to discuss them first. YMMV.
> I've just tried one input method you've changed
> (italian-postfix), and the change does the wrong thing: typing "E="
> inserts the latin-1 currency character, not the Euro (which doesn't
> exist in Latin-1).
>
> It has the same character code.
No, it doesn't; not inside Emacs, anyway. Try "C-u C-x =" on a Euro
(inserted with the latin-9-prefix) and on the character produced by
"E=" in italian-postfix, and you will see that the characters are
different.
> So, on a console, it depends on which
> font you have loaded. On X, it shows the international currency symbol.
Yes, I know that by reshuffling fonts and lying to Emacs about the
character sets supported by each font, you can get Emacs to display
almost any character as any other character. I can, for example,
display Hebrew text while Emacs would think it's Latin-1 text. But
it's hardly the right thing to introduce something like this into
Emacs. We will have a flood of FAQs and will leave gobs of users
confused for life. I think Mule is complicated enough even without
this.
> However, having a simple way to input the
> international currency symbol is good, in my opinion. You cannot always
> have a latin-9 font, while latin-1 is much more common. If you have to
> do with latin-1, the international currency is a good substitute for the
> euro symbol. That's why I think that change should be left alone.
I disagree; I think we should remove this change. If you are not
convinced, I guess Gerd and Richard will have to decide.
> More than that, I again ask if people think that the general latin-1 and
> national input methods should have a similarly simple method for
> entering the international currency symbol.
I don't think I understand what do you mean by that. Could you please
elaborate?
> It certainly does: there's the latin-9-prefix input method (you get
> the Euro if you type "~e"). Maybe we need more Latin-9 support; if
> so, let's add more input methods, but let's do it right.
>
> Hm. So I should add an Italian style for latin-9.
Yes, I think so. In general, Latin-9 should have the same assortment
of input methods as Latin-1.
> However, the tilde was maybe an unfortunate choice. It certainly is
> for Italian, as Italian keyboards do not have a tilde symbol.
We could add "=E" there; I don't see any problems with that. And if
you are going to add an italian input method, you can drop the "~e"
combination if you like.
- euro symbol, Francesco Potorti`, 2001/10/25
- Re: euro symbol, Alan Shutko, 2001/10/25
- Re: euro symbol, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/10/26
- Re: euro symbol, Francesco Potorti`, 2001/10/26
- Re: euro symbol, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/10/26
- Re: euro symbol, Francesco Potorti`, 2001/10/26
- Re: euro symbol, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/10/26
- Re: euro symbol, Dave Love, 2001/10/29
- Re: euro symbol, Richard Stallman, 2001/10/30
- Re: euro symbol, Dave Love, 2001/10/26