Re: bidi-display-reordering is now non-nil by default

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Eli Zaretskii writes:

 > > Sure, but byte-level equality is not part of that; character-level
 > > equality is.
 > 
 > LRM is also a character, for this purpose, yes?

Of course.  What makes you think I might deny that?

 > > No, that's a proof that it's *possible*, where your words claim it's
 > > *im*possible.
 > 
 > Impossible or unacceptable -- is there really a difference in
 > practice?

Yes.  You can't optimize impossible.  Optimizing unacceptable is what
puts programmers' kids through college.

 > > Sure.  And the presence of non-graphic characters in the buffer is
 > > going to make other code more complicated.
 > 
 > Again, LRM is just a character, like ZWNJ and friends.  We need to
 > support such characters in files anyway.  And we already started, with
 > the glyphless-char-display feature.

Support in files and treating them as characters in buffers are two
different issues.  Mule already requires supporting lots of characters
in files that never appear in buffers.  Unicode helps with that, but
it has its own problems.

 > I Only know about Emacs stickiness.

Yeah, I'm beginning to get the impression that "impossible" is a word
that may be appropriately applied to Emacs in this area. ;-)  Oh, well.