Re: [O] Use Emacs' default value of "bidi-paragraph-direction" in orgmode

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: ST <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2018 19:47:31 +0300
> 
> > I agree with (1) and (2), but your conclusion doesn't follow from
> > that.  The value nil means that the base directionality of
> > _each_paragraph_ is determined dynamically.  It does NOT mean that the
> > whole buffer will have the same directionality for all of its
> > paragraphs.  With nil, some paragraphs could have RTL direction, and
> > others LTR.  Worse, headings could have one direction and their bodies
> > another.  A single character at the beginning of a paragraph might
> > change that paragraph's base direction.  You don't want that with your
> > users.
> 
> All troubles that you describe here are relevant only for mixed ltr/rtl
> texts ("a single character" is an ltr character inside an rtl text,
> isn't it?), but we have agreed to exclude those as per (1). Can you give
> an example of pure rtl text with the issues mentioned above?

See the original problem description, the URL that was cited
up-thread.  It describes slow scrolling that happened in a pure LTR
Org buffer, and was solved by the setting I proposed.

> > Users of RTL languages should have bidi-paragraph-direction in Org
> > buffers set to right-to-left, not to nil.  The value of nil will
> > sometimes cause the heading to appear at the left while the body
> > appears on the right, or vice versa, which is the worst of all worlds.
> 
> Again, only for mixed ltr/rtl texts, until you prove (by example)
> otherwise.

The current default is better because it covers also those mixed
examples.

> If you don't have a counter-example, nil is better since that way you
> have one default setting for ALL buffers and you can work with BOTH ltr
> and rtl texts with the same config without the need to change anything.
> Contrary to mixed ltr/rtl texts - working with pure ltr texts is common
> also for rtl people.

We are going in rounds, and you don't convince me.  IME, such disputes
about defaults are rarely useful or constructive, because it is easy
to change the default, like I already said.

> >   That's what MS-Word users do all the time, right?
> 
> Yes, but they are used to buttons_check-boxes stuff, not lisp config
> files.

I suggested earlier to set up a site-wide init file, so that your
users won't have to be bothered by the problem.