Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding
Adriano Varoli Piazza wrote:
On Jul 8, 5:40 pm, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
Why am I not surprised that you can't imagine a text terminal
supporting utf-8 or any of the more common Japanese encodings? Just
for fun, I started emacs -nw (which lets it run as a non-GUI app)
inside of a GNOME terminal in an utf-8 environment, and tell you what:
no problems with input and display of Greek and Russian, even though
it explicitly ran as a terminal app.
That's frankly impossible. You can't fit the Greek, Russian, and Latin
alphabets into a character set of 256 characters for a text-mode
terminal to display. Not even if you reuse the same index for, say,
This -and the rest of your post- is too much fun. Thank you, you are
too funny. One might think you are doing it on purpose.
Hint: do wiki up UTF-8 before you continue down this new road of
ridiculing yourself. Here, since you brightened up the morning:
Hint #2: the 256 charset limit is solely your imposition.
OTOH, it's not only Emacs you haven't been in contact with for years.
It's a standard rhetorical device. Someone presents evidence that contradicts
one's conclusion, e.g., that they entered Greek or Russian or Katakana
characters on their text terminal and it worked fine. This evidence is based
on actual experience. The person whose conclusion is destroyed then asserts
that the evidence is impossible or that the reporter is lying.
There is no benefit to providing evidence in the face of such
close-mindedness. No matter how many facts you present, the respondent will
tell you that it is not possible, or that you are lying, or that you are
"really" talking about a different product (despite it coming from the same
place and codebase), and will continue obstinately to disbelieve, and of
course, will never try it themselves lest they be forced to open a door into
that heavily-guarded fortress they call a mind.
Whether this is honest mental rigidity or merely trollish rhetoric only the
practitioner could know.