[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [emacs-bidi] Treatment of LRE,RLE,LRO,RLO,PDF,LRM,RLM

From: Kenichi Handa
Subject: Re: [emacs-bidi] Treatment of LRE,RLE,LRO,RLO,PDF,LRM,RLM
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:35:04 +0900

In article <address@hidden>, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

> > But, as I wrote before, I'm still hesitating over which is
> > better; keeping glyphless-char-display separate from display
> > table, or integrating that functionality to display table.

> What are the pros and cons, which make you hesitate?

Both glyphless-char-display and display table control the
displaying of each character.  I think such a control should
be done by a single mechanism.  At least it will benefit
users in a long run.

But, the biggest concern is about the backward
compatibility.  Currently, a display table element is nil or
vector of characters.  If there's a code that assumes that a
non-nil element is a vector of characters, it will be
broken.  Next, a display table is not inherited.  So, if
buffer-display-table or a window-specific display is set,
standard-display-table is not looked up.  At last, there are
several standard-display-XXX functions
(e.g. standard-display-8bit).  At the moment, I don't know
how to make the functionality of
glyphless-char-display-control go with them.

> > I agree on exempting TAB and NL from c0-control group.

> Done.

Thank you.

Kenichi Handa

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]