[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: not quite understanding input methods

From: tomas
Subject: Re: not quite understanding input methods
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2021 10:37:59 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 02:43:37PM +0700, Yuri Khan wrote:


> My point (which some will find offensive) is that maybe one doesn’t
> need to implement input methods in Emacs.
> If you have Compose in Emacs, it works in Emacs. If you have Compose
> in XKB, it works across your whole desktop.

As most extreme assertions, this is true and false at the same time.

In general, and for those input methods I use most, I do try to
get them functioning at the X level (Emacs, after all, isn't my
only text entry application: this might vary from person to person,
too). Personally I have a compose key I regularly add sequences to,
and two keyboard layouts (Latin, Greek) via group toggle.

That said, Emacs input machinery is (finitely, but still enormously)
more flexible and configurable than what X has to offer. For example,
I can only have alternate keyboard layouts I'm (somewhat) willing
to memorise. If I want to input, e.g. Cyrillic with mnemonic sequences
based on phonetics (because I can't be bothered to learn yet another
keyboard layout), cyrillic-translit is probably an input method
difficult to achieve with X.

On top of that, quail, albeit not easy, is probably still an order
of magnitude more hackable than the X11 methods.

In a nutshell: I enjoy having both and thank all the hackers of
the world for having both.

In a smaller nutshell: all generalisations suck :)

 - t

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

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