[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
From: |
Daimrod |
Subject: |
bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method |
Date: |
Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:38:29 +0900 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.92 (gnu/linux) |
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> From: Daimrod <daimrod@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>, 18023@debbugs.gnu.org
>> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:28:26 +0900
>>
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>> >> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
>> >> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:33:44 -0400
>> >> Cc: 18023@debbugs.gnu.org
>> >>
>> >> > This patch permits the user to type " _" using the latin-postfix input
>> >> > method. ATM the user has to use the following sequence:
>> >> > `SPC SPC DEL _'
>> >>
>> >> I have no objection to the patch, but don't have time to evaluate it
>> >> (I'm travelling and only have occasionally Internet access).
>> >
>> > 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".
--
Daimrod/Greg
bug#18023: 24.3.92; [PATH] Missing fallback in latin-postfix input method, K. Handa, 2014/07/24