On 19-Oct-2010, Axel Beckert wrote: > I still believe we can get both cases where they don't interfere. Of > course if there are different table entries for each order, they > should be honoured. But if there's only one entry for a given > combination, both orders should work.
I don't have an interest in it working that way; but it's compatible with the behaiour request that motivated this bug report. Perhaps you could make a patch that takes the table entries, and auto-generates new entries for each pair reversed, only where there's no existing entry for that sequence. That way, the table look-up could be order-dependent, and both ‘a:’ and ‘:a’ would still produce ‘ä’ because both of those sequences would exist in the table that gets used. -- \ “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “Wuh, I think | `\ so, Brain, but how will we get three pink flamingos into one | _o__) pair of Capri pants?” —_Pinky and The Brain_ | Ben Finney <b...@benfinney.id.au>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
