Miles Bader [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The point of similarity is not break-vs-non-break, but that they're
both characters which can be displayed identically to some more
common character in display contexts, but which should be
distinguished visually (e.g., with an escape prefix [\]) in
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unicode is entitled to its opinion, but we do not necessarily
follow Unicode's opinion.
It's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact about line breaking in
general even if you don't accept the semantics of U+00AD as a format
character. Even if you
I guess it should be visible at the end of the line.
Well Unicode says that guess is wrong...
Unicode is entitled to its opinion, but we do not necessarily
follow Unicode's opinion.
If the opinion is based on reasons, those reasons may be valid. It
would be useful for us to look at
Miles Bader [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've no idea why non-breaking characters should be displayed like
this, but U+00AD isn't one -- it's SOFT HYPHEN. If you're going to
change its display, the issue (see Unicode) is whether or not it
should be displayed at all -- not that I think it
Juri Linkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I agree. ^L fontified as a keyword looks horrible. That's why I suggested
to change its color to dark red to look more like comments.
The point isn't the specific colour, but the fact that there is
mysterious highlighting at all.
I've no idea why
Stefan Monnier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
in either case, standard-display-table is not nil, so this let's make sure
the standard-display-table default is nil argument doesn't hold much water.
It would be better if it _was_ nil rather than having the misleading
display of eight-bit characters
I don't know about you, but when I do here
emacs -Q
or
emacs -nw -Q
in either case, standard-display-table is not nil,
Why is that? It is nil for me.
Probably the locale. I have LANG=fr_CH.ISO-8859-1.
Admittedly, the fr_CH population is small, but the
Stefan Monnier wrote:
I don't know about you, but when I do here
emacs -Q
or
emacs -nw -Q
in either case, standard-display-table is not nil,
Why is that? It is nil for me.
Probably the locale. I have LANG=fr_CH.ISO-8859-1.
After `emacs
I don't know about you, but when I do here
emacs -Q
or
emacs -nw -Q
in either case, standard-display-table is not nil,
Why is that? It is nil for me.
Probably the locale. I have LANG=fr_CH.ISO-8859-1.
Admittedly, the fr_CH population is small, but the
I find the new display features concerning `escape-glyph' and
`show-nonbreak-escape' annoying, but also they're obscure and partly
inconsistent. This is roughly what I went through on encountering
them.
First you wonder why, say, ^L in your source files is apparently being
font-locked as a
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 02:59:33 +0300, Juri Linkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree. ^L fontified as a keyword looks horrible. That's why I suggested
to change its color to dark red to look more like comments.
We already had this argument.
In other buffers I think that instead of adding escape
11 matches
Mail list logo
