[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input metho
bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method
Mon, 04 Aug 2014 19:45:08 +0200
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.92 (gnu/linux)
Daimrod <address@hidden> writes:
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>>> From: Daimrod <address@hidden>
>>> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
>>> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:38:29 +0900
>>> >> > FWIW, it strikes me that "C-q _" is less typing.
>>> >> It's not consistent and it doesn't really save typing:
>>> >> - "SPC _ _"
>>> >> - "SPC C-q _"
>>> > I meant "SPC SPC DEL _". As for "SPC _ _", it's of the same length,
>>> > so it doesn't save typing, either.
>>> It wasn't clear in my initial message so it's my fault. In my patch, I
>>> update the latin-postfix input-method so that one can type "SPC _ _"
>>> instead of "SPC SPC DEL _".
>>> Though I agree that it doesn't save typing compared to the method you
>>> proposed, my approach saves typing compared to the current method and I
>>> find my method faster to type because it's consistent with the other
>>> combinations and it doesn't "break the flow".
>> I don't necessarily object to the change, I just wanted to point out
>> that alternatives better than "SPC SPC DEL _" do exist.
> If everybody agrees, can it be merged?
> My assignment number is #793656 though I don't think it is required for
> such a tiny change.
- bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method,