Re: poor man R2L support
Uwe Brauer writes:
Yes and no. Because if you do this with your function you get visual
hebrew.
The naming scheme of "visual" vs "logical" R2L still confuses me 15.5
years after M17N-1998.
Kile has a similar input to your function but results in (when I
open the file say with less
_shalom
Is that what you see in Kile? If not (if you see the text in proper
R2L form), Kile probably just uses pango or similar to display (this
is what Aidan was talking about with getting R2L almost for free with
pango, but I don't think it works that way in Emacsen).
Which is displayed: (when I open with GNU emacs24) as
_molahs
The issue is the display engine has to be touched, but the input part is
simpler. But maybe the hard part is the display engine not the input.
Yeah, unfortunately since you want the file in logical order, you want
the buffer that way too. So input is trivial but display is really
hard if you want proper bidi. I think the proper thing to do is to
port Eliz's implementation of UAX #9 from GNU Emacs.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta