[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input metho
bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
Sat, 26 Jul 2014 11:26:54 +0900
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.92 (gnu/linux)
Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>> From: Daimrod <address@hidden>
>> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
>> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:38:29 +0900
>> >> > FWIW, it strikes me that "C-q _" is less typing.
>> >> It's not consistent and it doesn't really save typing:
>> >> - "SPC _ _"
>> >> - "SPC C-q _"
>> > I meant "SPC SPC DEL _". As for "SPC _ _", it's of the same length,
>> > so it doesn't save typing, either.
>> It wasn't clear in my initial message so it's my fault. In my patch, I
>> update the latin-postfix input-method so that one can type "SPC _ _"
>> instead of "SPC SPC DEL _".
>> Though I agree that it doesn't save typing compared to the method you
>> proposed, my approach saves typing compared to the current method and I
>> find my method faster to type because it's consistent with the other
>> combinations and it doesn't "break the flow".
> I don't necessarily object to the change, I just wanted to point out
> that alternatives better than "SPC SPC DEL _" do exist.
If everybody agrees, can it be merged?
My assignment number is #793656 though I don't think it is required for
such a tiny change.
bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method, K. Handa, 2014/07/24