Re: Insert Euro symbol

[Kai Großjohann]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

> I see your point, and it would require zero additional change to
> permit input methods that were intended for use only in C-x 8.  But
> I tend to think they won't be useful, because it won't be worth
> learning a different input method just for use within C-x 8.  The
> whole idea here is that you put an input method on C-x 8 to use it
> "occasionally."  People don't want to learn a lot more in order to
> do something occasionally.
>
> Now, if there could be a systematic simplification, such as
> "You don't need to type ., after C-x 8", that could be worth while
> because the amount one needs to remember is small.

The "systematic simplification" I have in mind would be that C-x 8
offers both prefix-style sequences and postfix-style sequences:

    C-x 8 ' e
    C-x 8 e '

Both of these sequences insert the é character.

Another thing that's useful, IMHO, is to make C-x 8 change as little
as possible.  That is, if the C-x 8 foo key sequence inserted the bar
character before, it should continue to do so.

Yet another idea: it is harmless to override many key sequences in
C-x 8, so C-x 8 could offer convenient shortcuts, in case people like
them.

In the end, we just compute the union of

  - the existing set of key sequences for C-x 8
  - latin-*-prefix
  - latin-*-postfix
  - whatever else comes to our mind.

We just need to be careful when conflicts arise.  I don't know how to
resolve them: should we prefer the old C-x 8 bindings, or the latin-*
input methods?

kai
-- 
Silence is foo!