Re: A simple solution to "Upcoming loss of usability ..."

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 06/26/2015 01:17 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:

> Perhaps some complex regular expression would work most of the time.
> We'd have to see.  However, its complexity will make its behavior hard
> to document, and it will likely lead to counterintuitive display of
> source code on occasion.  It's a minor thing to get a color wrong; it's
> a bigger deal to display the wrong character.  The resulting problems
> are likely not to be worth the aggravation.

This is just hand-waving. I gave you a patch, feel free to criticize it, 
ask to support different cases, etc.

You can display a wrong character with sustitute-command-keys just as 
well. Like in its own docstring currently ("Each ‘ and ’ are replaced 
by...").

> As I said, action-at-a-distance is not a fatal objection.  But yes, that
> behavior of double-quote is objectionable, and I wish that Emacs didn't
> do it.

I don't see a way how Emacs would be able not do it.

> Third-party code doesn't need to change.  It'll still work reasonably well.

Then we'll be in the "double standard" area.

> > We can keep it disabled by default, if you like. Unlike the
> > substitute-command-keys approach, font-lock is flexible that way.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand this remark.  Both approaches allow for
> defaults, and for behavior to be disabled by default, so neither has an
> advantage in that respect.

With substitute-command-keys, you can't control the way the characters 
look in the source buffer (which Oleh's patch was for). Only how they 
look in the Help buffer.