On 2017-08-09, Scott Kostyshak wrote: ...
> Right now, it seems there is more support for f, which I understand to > mean "do nothing" with respect to the current behavior in master. If > anyone else would like to vote, please do so as soon as possible. I hope > to release beta1 next week. For me, it is a different picture without a clear winner: Totals: +1 a) "literal dash + allowbreak" +1 b) "special char" +1 f) "buffer setting" 0 d) "ERT" -1 c) "keep 2.2 (literal dash)" -1 e) "preamble code" -1 g) "revert to 2.1" I agree that there is a margin of error and I may have misunderstood or missed some of the feedback. So, please correct me in case I got it wrong. Details: a) convert ligature dashes to literal dash + allowbreak +1 Günter 13 Jun 2017 "simple and configurable" b) convert ligature dashes to special character insets +0 Günter "100% backwards compatible but complicated" +1 Jean-Marc 16 Jul 2017 "I … prefer … a special inset over … ERT" c) keep 2.2 behaviour (convert ligature dashes to literal dashes) -1 Enrico 2017-06-15 d) convert "ligature dashes" to ERT -1 Enrico 2017-06-01, "I am fiercely opposed to … ERT …" -1 Jean-Marc 16 Jul 2017 "nobody wants to really use it" +1 Richard 04/26/2017 "This seems the simplest." +1 Günter 2017-08-09 "simple, 100% backwards compatible" e) re-define \textemdash -1 Jean-Marc 28 Jul 2017 "bound to cause us trouble one day" f) keep the current 2.3alpha behaviour (buffer setting) +1 Pavel 28 Jul 2017 "I tend to agree with f)" +1 Enrico 28 Jul 2017 "IMO, f) is the best compromise" -1 Günter 04/25/17 "possible data loss and formatting changes" g) revert to 2.1 behaviour -1 Günter Thanks, Günter
