GNU bug report logs - #18023
24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 18023 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 18023 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Daimrod <daimrod <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:57:55 +0900

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

This patch permits the user to type " _" using the latin-postfix input
method. ATM the user has to use the following sequence:
`SPC SPC DEL _'

[0001-lisp-leim-quail-latin-post.el-latin-postfix-Add-miss.patch (text/x-diff, inline)]

From 44827e32f099e8090c87e07893e34079cfc8130e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Gr=C3=A9goire=20Jadi?= <gregoire.jadi <at> gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:51:44 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] * lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el (latin-postfix): Add missing
 fallback

Transform " __" into " _".
---
 lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el b/lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el
index c72c459..a4bb85e 100644
--- a/lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el
+++ b/lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el
@@ -2299,6 +2299,7 @@ Doubling the postfix separates the letter and postfix: e.g. a'' -> a'
  ("z." ?ż)
  ("z~" ?ž)
 
+ (" __" [" _"])
  ("!//" ["!/"])
  ("///" ["//"])
  ("<<<" ["<<"])
-- 
1.8.0.2722.gc0242e5

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

-- 
Daimrod/Greg

Message #8 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Daimrod <daimrod <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 00:06:53 +0900

Daimrod <daimrod <at> gmail.com> writes:

Bump.

Any comments on this?

> This patch permits the user to type " _" using the latin-postfix input
> method. ATM the user has to use the following sequence:
> `SPC SPC DEL _'
>
>
> From 44827e32f099e8090c87e07893e34079cfc8130e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: =?UTF-8?q?Gr=C3=A9goire=20Jadi?= <gregoire.jadi <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:51:44 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] * lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el (latin-postfix): Add missing
>  fallback
>
> Transform " __" into " _".
> ---
>  lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el b/lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el
> index c72c459..a4bb85e 100644
> --- a/lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el
> +++ b/lisp/leim/quail/latin-post.el
> @@ -2299,6 +2299,7 @@ Doubling the postfix separates the letter and postfix: e.g. a'' -> a'
>   ("z." ?ż)
>   ("z~" ?ž)
>  
> + (" __" [" _"])
>   ("!//" ["!/"])
>   ("///" ["//"])
>   ("<<<" ["<<"])
> -- 
> 1.8.0.2722.gc0242e5

-- 
Daimrod/Greg

Message #11 received at 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Daimrod <daimrod <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#18023: 24.3.92;
 [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:33:44 -0400

> This patch permits the user to type " _" using the latin-postfix input
> method. ATM the user has to use the following sequence:
> `SPC SPC DEL _'

I have no objection to the patch, but don't have time to evaluate it
(I'm travelling and only have occasionally Internet access).


        Stefan

Message #14 received at 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: daimrod <at> gmail.com, 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#18023: 24.3.92;
 [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 21:38:47 +0300

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:33:44 -0400
> Cc: 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > This patch permits the user to type " _" using the latin-postfix input
> > method. ATM the user has to use the following sequence:
> > `SPC SPC DEL _'
> 
> I have no objection to the patch, but don't have time to evaluate it
> (I'm travelling and only have occasionally Internet access).

FWIW, it strikes me that "C-q _" is less typing.

Message #17 received at 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Daimrod <daimrod <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>, 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#18023: 24.3.92;
 [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:28:26 +0900

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
>> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:33:44 -0400
>> Cc: 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> 
>> > This patch permits the user to type " _" using the latin-postfix input
>> > method. ATM the user has to use the following sequence:
>> > `SPC SPC DEL _'
>> 
>> I have no objection to the patch, but don't have time to evaluate it
>> (I'm travelling and only have occasionally Internet access).
>
> 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 _"

--
Daimrod/Greg

Message #20 received at 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Daimrod <daimrod <at> gmail.com>
Cc: monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#18023: 24.3.92;
 [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 06:47:28 +0300

> From: Daimrod <daimrod <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,  18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:28:26 +0900
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
> >> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:33:44 -0400
> >> Cc: 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >> 
> >> > This patch permits the user to type " _" using the latin-postfix input
> >> > method. ATM the user has to use the following sequence:
> >> > `SPC SPC DEL _'
> >> 
> >> I have no objection to the patch, but don't have time to evaluate it
> >> (I'm travelling and only have occasionally Internet access).
> >
> > 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.

Message #23 received at 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Daimrod <daimrod <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#18023: 24.3.92;
 [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:38:29 +0900

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Daimrod <daimrod <at> gmail.com>
>> Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,  18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:28:26 +0900
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> >> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
>> >> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:33:44 -0400
>> >> Cc: 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> >> 
>> >> > This patch permits the user to type " _" using the latin-postfix input
>> >> > method. ATM the user has to use the following sequence:
>> >> > `SPC SPC DEL _'
>> >> 
>> >> I have no objection to the patch, but don't have time to evaluate it
>> >> (I'm travelling and only have occasionally Internet access).
>> >
>> > 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".

-- 
Daimrod/Greg

Message #26 received at 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: handa <at> gnu.org (K. Handa)
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: daimrod <at> gmail.com, 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#18023: 24.3.92;
 [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 23:09:00 +0900

In article <jwv1ttea7gd.fsf-monnier+emacsbugs <at> gnu.org>, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> > This patch permits the user to type " _" using the latin-postfix input
> > method. ATM the user has to use the following sequence:
> > `SPC SPC DEL _'

> I have no objection to the patch, but don't have time to evaluate it
> (I'm travelling and only have occasionally Internet access).

I agree with the patch because it provides the consistent
behavor of that input method; i.e. when latin-post converts
the typing of "xy" to "z", you can insert "xy" by typing
"xyy" without deactivating the input method.

---
Kenichi Handa
handa <at> gnu.org

Message #29 received at 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Daimrod <daimrod <at> gmail.com>
Cc: monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#18023: 24.3.92;
 [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 11:12:18 +0300

> From: Daimrod <daimrod <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca,  18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 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.

Message #32 received at 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Daimrod <daimrod <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#18023: 24.3.92;
 [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 11:26:54 +0900

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Daimrod <daimrod <at> gmail.com>
>> Cc: monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca,  18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> 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.

Best,
-- 
Daimrod/Greg

Message #35 received at 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Daimrod <daimrod <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca, 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#18023: 24.3.92;
 [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 19:45:08 +0200

Daimrod <daimrod <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>>> From: Daimrod <daimrod <at> gmail.com>
>>> Cc: monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca,  18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>>> 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.

ping?

--
Daimrod/Greg

Message #40 received at 18023-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: 18023-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#18023: 24.3.92;
 [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 20:44:48 -0400

Version: 24.5

Thanks; applied to trunk.

(I wish more of the ~ 200 people with write access would help with this
kind of thing.)

Message #43 received at 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Daimrod <daimrod <at> gmail.com>
To: 18023 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: rgm <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#18023: 24.3.92;
 [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 14:20:29 +0200

Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Version: 24.5
>
> Thanks; applied to trunk.

Thanks!

> (I wish more of the ~ 200 people with write access would help with this
> kind of thing.)

-- 
Daimrod/Greg

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.