Re: Single quotes in Info

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 10:34:58 -0800 (PST)
> From: Drew Adams <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> 
> > > I would like to see the ability for users to define classes, and to
> > > "activate" (enable the use of; turn on) or "deactivate" (turn off) a
> > > particular class of equivalences as a whole, including any of the
> > > predefined classes.
> > 
> > This would require modifying the Unicode tables.  They are just large
> > char-tables, so someone who knows what they are doing should be able
> > to do that.
> 
> The point is to let ordinary users define such classes, and use them
> selectively.

They should be able to.  But I was talking about _un_defining existing
classes.

> > and I don't see why users would
> > like to disable or replace portions of those tables.
> 
> That's putting it wrong, putting it already in terms of implementation.

No, it's not.  I just used these words, that's all.  The intent was to
say that disabling portions of a certain class makes no sense.

> Ordinary users would certainly not *want* to "disable or replace portions
> of those tables".  That is, they would not want to, and should not need
> to, think in terms of such tables.

Red herring.  I was using these words to make the issue clear.

> What (some) ordinary users are liable to want to be able to do is define
> a class of chars that they can use in place of each other etc., and to
> choose among such classes, via Lisp or interactively, enabling/disabling
> the equivalences they define.

Replacing existing classes would need modifications of the Unicode
tables.  Again, not easy, and should be.

> > E.g., why would you want to make 2 and ② equivalent, but not 2 and ²?
> 
> Why not?  Why not be able to define your own class that includes
> 2 = ②, 3 = ③, etc., but not 2 = ² etc.?

Because it makes no sense.  This isn't some game we are playing here;
these equivalences have deep meaning in some contexts.  If they don't,
they should not be used as a whole.

> > So this kind of customization doesn't have to be easy, IMO, and
> > it's okay to ask such users to know what they are doing.
> 
> I disagree.

Then we will have to agree to disagree.

However, this is all highly theoretical, since the real decision will
be made by whoever develops this.