[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Insert Euro symbol

From: Miles Bader
Subject: Re: Insert Euro symbol
Date: 03 May 2002 19:48:36 +0900

"Eli Zaretskii" <address@hidden> writes:
> > It's very convenient for people who don't use a latin-x input method
> > normally but want to only insert a character or two.
> Is that because you have some other input method active?

Yes.  I normally use the japanese language environment, so hitting C-\
gets me the japanese input method (though I'm normally not using it in
the same buffer where I use `C-x 8'); I'd have to do something like
`C-u C-\ latin-1-prefix RET' to get latin-1 characters.

> Because otherwise, the number of keystrokes to toggle input method,
> type the character, then toggle again is the same as with C-x 8.

... however even _if_ I could just `enable an input method,' that seems
somehow ... wrong.  I _want_ to just give a prefix and get one
character, and not have to worry about turning off the input method (I'm
not entirely sure why this is, but probably because I only type isolated
latin-x characters, and so toggling a `mode' feels like the wrong thing).

> C-x 8 is just another input method these days.  Except that it
> doesn't behave like one, and that causes confusion among users and
> makes the documentation more difficult to write.

It may actually be `an input method', but that's not how I think of
it.  I think of it as being a big table of latin-x characters that I
can insert by giving a command.

> If it is a frequent problem with the Euro that people need to insert
> them when they have a non-Latin input method active, perhaps we should
> add the Euro to some non-Latin input methods as well.

As it is, `C-x 8' is orthogonal to, and can act independently of other
input methods -- and this is a _good thing_.  Getting rid of it by adding
some of it's functionality to other input methods seems like it would
simply complicate the situation and lead to more inconsistent (and
probably more buggy) behavior.  [note that I say `seems' -- maybe it's
possible to avoid this, but I can't say without seeing a plan to do so.]

Now, if you added some general way of having multiple input methods
active without lots of keystrokes (and possibly having one available as
using a `prefix' like C-x 8), then that would be useful because it would
preserve the benefits of C-x 8 while perhaps making it more general and

> If there another functionality that does the same and doesn't require
> more keystrokes, will you consider switching?

I also like the C-x 8 interface; assuming something equally handy, then
`of course' -- but `number of keystrokes' really isn't the only
important metric here (though it's nice and easy to measure).

Occam's razor split hairs so well, I bought the whole argument!

reply via email to

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