Ron Aaron wrote:
> On Friday, May 31, 2013 12:27:21 PM UTC+3, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>
> > I find it a bit annoying that Unicode has two forms for the same character.
> > They should have made a choice to either use a base character plus composing
> > characters, or the combined form. Now we ne
Christian Brabandt wrote:
> On Fr, 31 Mai 2013, Ron Aaron wrote:
>
> > I think there should be an option (probably an option, not a regex
> > flag) which controls whether or not the engine finds "ff" (unicode
> > 0xfb00) when searching for "f", for example. It seems to me that
> > most people ma
On Friday, May 31, 2013 4:29:04 PM UTC+3, LCD 47 wrote:
Thanks for the links
It is indeed a can of worms, but we need to live with it in some reasonable
manner.
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
Fo
On Friday, May 31, 2013 4:39:14 PM UTC+3, Mike Williams wrote:
> Alas I have zero knowledge of Hebrew so will have to bow to your
> superior knowledge. You will know better the use case of finding base
> characters with and without combining marks.
Thanks, I guess...
There are no ligatures in
On 31/05/2013 13:31, Ron Aaron wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:56:56 PM UTC+3, Mike Williams wrote:
On 31/05/2013 11:23, Ron Aaron wrote:
"ff" is a ligature, not a composed character. Although it has a decomposed
form it cannot be recomposed with Unicode composing rules (f is not a
composing c
On 31 May 2013, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
[...]
> I find it a bit annoying that Unicode has two forms for the same
> character. They should have made a choice to either use a base
> character plus composing characters, or the combined form. Now we need
> to solve this in software everywhere.
[...]
i'm basicaly new to unicode, so this message will probably make me look as a
total newbie (which in fact i am), but i've been totally sucked in by this
thread and started searching around in google... :)
anyway, unless i understood everything wrong, if we have "ffi" and decompose it,
and we decom
On Friday, May 31, 2013 2:02:27 PM UTC+3, Christian Brabandt wrote:
> Wouldn't it be enough, if we enhance the equivalence classes a bit? I
> have posted a patch, which enhances the equivalence classes a while ago.
> It didn't include U+FB00, but I think, we could easily add the missing
> char
On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:56:56 PM UTC+3, Mike Williams wrote:
> On 31/05/2013 11:23, Ron Aaron wrote:
>
> "ff" is a ligature, not a composed character. Although it has a decomposed
> form it cannot be recomposed with Unicode composing rules (f is not a
> composing character) There are others inc
Hi Ron!
On Fr, 31 Mai 2013, Ron Aaron wrote:
> I think there should be an option (probably an option, not a regex flag)
> which controls whether or not the engine finds "ff" (unicode 0xfb00) when
> searching for "f", for example. It seems to me that most people may not need
> it, but those of
On 31/05/2013 11:23, Ron Aaron wrote:
I think there should be an option (probably an option, not a regex flag) which controls whether or
not the engine finds "ff" (unicode 0xfb00) when searching for "f", for example.
It seems to me that most people may not need it, but those of us who frequentl
I think there should be an option (probably an option, not a regex flag) which
controls whether or not the engine finds "ff" (unicode 0xfb00) when searching
for "f", for example. It seems to me that most people may not need it, but
those of us who frequently edit multilingual or other rich texts
On Friday, May 31, 2013 12:27:21 PM UTC+3, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
> I find it a bit annoying that Unicode has two forms for the same character.
> They should have made a choice to either use a base character plus composing
> characters, or the combined form. Now we need to solve this in software
Ron Aaron wrote:
> I was puzzled when searching for this in some Hebrew text:
>
> /ארבע\Z/
>
> That it did not match this:
>
> אַרְבָּעָה
>
> As it happens, the אַ is Unicode combined form of the aleph plus the
> vowel patah.
>
> There are two issues:
>
> 1) First, is that the normal
I was puzzled when searching for this in some Hebrew text:
/ארבע\Z/
That it did not match this:
אַרְבָּעָה
As it happens, the אַ is Unicode combined form of the aleph plus the vowel
patah.
There are two issues:
1) First, is that the normal user would expect a match here, since the sym
15 matches
Mail list logo
