[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: translation-table-for-input

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: translation-table-for-input
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:38:54 +0200

> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden
> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:58:54 -0500
> > I ended up removing the make-obsolete-variable call for
> > translation-table-for-input, and instead added a blurb to its doc
> > string to discourage its use for unification purposes.
> Please don't.

Too late, it's done.

> If you really want to fix the warning then either use
> with-no-warnings, or just remove the whole feature.
> But don't just remove the call to make-obsolete-variable.

Based on the discussion that followed my original question, I became
convinced that this variable is not obsolete at all.  Thus, what I did
eventually had nothing to do with eliminating the warning per se.

> > No, it's not obsolete.
> The "obsolete" thingy mostly means "slated for removal", AFAIC.  So,
> yes, it is "obsolete" because I plan to remove it altogether.

Declaring something obsolete requires that we name which other feature
to use in its stead.  Do we have such an alternative in place?

> > Its use for character code unification is obsolete, but otherwise
> > having a possibility to translate the output of an input method is
> > a valuable feature.
> I see no such evidence.

My evidence is that there's no alternative to translating the output
of an input method.

> > I understand Handa-san objected to deleting it in the past.
> Yes, simply out of fear that someone somewhere might use it.  Hence the
> `make-obsolete-variable' so aso to warn people that if they use it, they
> should come and see us

I put the same information into the doc string, precisely for that

reply via email to

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