[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: evaluating numbers
From: |
Jean-Christophe Helary |
Subject: |
Re: evaluating numbers |
Date: |
Sun, 10 Nov 2019 09:59:14 +0900 |
> On Nov 9, 2019, at 20:48, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> I'm not questioning the default, I'm trying to understand a feature and it's
>> default setting. Apologies if that takes time.
>
> I'm happy to explain what is still unclear. It seemed to me that the
> latest questions all aim at asking why not do something other than the
> default, they don't ask clarifications about the feature, which is
> really quite simple. Apologies if this is my misunderstanding.
As I just replied to Stephan, there is a big cognitive gap here. And it's not
easy to wrap my mind around it.
>>> If you want to suggest a different way of looking for a suitable font,
>>> please do.
>>
>> Maybe not "look for a suitable font" but set a default font for that action.
>> There is a finite number of standard fonts on systems that support emacs.
>
> Unfortunately, the last sentence is in general incorrect. The reality
> is that no font (at least none that I know of) supports all of
> Unicode, so we will need to have several fonts from which to select.
> And that is tricky if you want the result work on all platforms.
I understand that.
So allow me to get back to my original issue, it's a repetition of what I've
written already but please bear with me.
65 (#o101, #x41, ?A)
is perfect
Not so long ago I had
1114111 (#o4177777, #x10ffff, ?� )
and it was fine, because the glitch at the end meant to me that the font did
not cover that code point. I've known that for a long time.
Now I have
1114111 (#o4177777, #x10ffff)
And I even have
232 (#o350, #xe8)
even though 232 is clearly covered by my default fonts.
The issue here is that I can't know for sure that there is a corresponding
glyph or not.
For "discoverability" (or "cognitive gap reduction") purposes, I'd rather have
something like
1114111 (#o4177777, #x10ffff, t)
232 (#o350, #xe8, t)
or something similar where t is the value of characterp for that integer when
the integer is above the value of eval-expression-print-maximum-character.
That way I *know* when an integer is a character and when it is not. And I can
find ways to look for it separately.
Would that break things ?
Jean-Christophe Helary
-----------------------------------------------
http://mac4translators.blogspot.com @brandelune
- Re: evaluating numbers, (continued)
- Re: evaluating numbers, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/11/08
- Re: evaluating numbers, Jean-Christophe Helary, 2019/11/08
- Re: evaluating numbers, Stefan Monnier, 2019/11/08
- Re: evaluating numbers, Jean-Christophe Helary, 2019/11/08
- Re: evaluating numbers, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/11/09
- Re: evaluating numbers, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/11/08
- Re: evaluating numbers, Jean-Christophe Helary, 2019/11/08
- Re: evaluating numbers, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/11/09
- Re: evaluating numbers, Jean-Christophe Helary, 2019/11/09
- Re: evaluating numbers, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/11/09
- Re: evaluating numbers,
Jean-Christophe Helary <=
- Re: evaluating numbers, Andreas Schwab, 2019/11/10
- Re: evaluating numbers, Juri Linkov, 2019/11/10
- Re: evaluating numbers, Juri Linkov, 2019/11/12
- RE: evaluating numbers, Drew Adams, 2019/11/12
- RE: evaluating numbers, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/11/12
- RE: evaluating numbers, Drew Adams, 2019/11/12
- RE: evaluating numbers, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/11/13
- RE: evaluating numbers, Drew Adams, 2019/11/13
- Re: evaluating numbers, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/11/14
- Re: evaluating numbers, Juri Linkov, 2019/11/14