Gregory Heytings wrote: >> I don't see any failure. Richard's complaint was that >> characters without glyphs were getting displayed as long >> hex strings rather than the "diamond" that they were >> previously displayed as. I think the complaint has merit. >> It seems to me to be a classic case for a user option. > > You forget to mention that the context in which this bug was > fixed in January is that RMS complained that ligatures such > as "fi" showed up as a diamond [...] At that time what he > wanted is that Emacs would automatically replace such > ligatures by two letters in his Linux console, and that's > what he got: Eli improved the latin1-display-ucs-per-lynx > function in fd42ba3adb. At that time diamonds were > considered "unhelpful", and he said for example: "I doubt > any user wants to see a diamond instead of `fi'." > > During that discussion, the bug that is now objected against > was also fixed, by 10c680551e. > > I, too, doubt any user wants to see a diamond instead of an > actual character! Why are these diamonds suddenly useful > again? How comes that a proposed solution with which > ligatures such as "fi" are actually displayed as "fi", with > which UTF-8 is actually supported instead of having to > resort to ugly hacks such as latin1-display-ucs-per-lynx, > and with which missing glyphs are in fact again displayed > with these same diamonds, is criticized?
Guys, we are not fighting a holy war over in what order to make the Sign of the Cross here, right? -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal
