Re: [vile] vile-9.6j.patch.gz

[Thomas Dickey]

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008, Paul van Tilburg wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 04:20:55PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Mar 2008, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> > > > My xterm behaves oddly.. compose key usages seems to result in
> > > > no chars being inputted at all, but I can copy & paste UTF-8 chars
> > > > into the xterm (shell prompt).
> >
> > I dimly recall some comment regarding gnome-terminal and compose keys.
> > google finds this, which indicates that it can do that, but isn't by
> > default:
> >
> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/2006-January/063131.html
> >
> > However, this seems to say it's not:
> >
> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xkeyboard-config/+bug/98945
> >
> > (xterm uses a different set of libraries than gnome for this, so it'll
> > be broken by a different set of developers ;-)
>
> Compose (Multi_key) works fine for me in GNOME terminal, just not in xterm,
> dunno way.. anyway, I can copy&paste when needed.

xterm might have some translation resource interfering with it.
The paste uses a different route though...

> > > > Anyway, if I edit the file attached, both in xterm and gnome-terminal
> > > > with the above shown locales I see:
> >
> > > > Accents: \?E9\?F3\?E1\?ED
> > > > Dashes: – —
> > > >
> > > > (So the en- and em-dash (U2013, U2014) are shown correctly, but the vowels
> > > > with accents are not).
> >
> > That sounds as if it's in the same general area as the fix I made for
> > pound sign.  The dashes are codes that cannot be mistaken for Latin-1.
> > Setting unicode-as-hex for your testfile, I see
> >
> > Accents: \u00E9\u00F3\u00E1\u00ED
> > Dashes: \u2013 \u2014
>
> I see this too!

hmm - flipping between \?E9 and \u00E9 shouldn't be doable
(but the :show-printable isn't giving _me_ the expected result).

> > One oddity that I can see at the moment is that using :show-printable,
> > the second column using your locale settings is showing things like \?FA,
> > where the en_US.UTF-8 that I normally use is showing the Latin-1 code.
> > (I expect the latter).  I'll investigate that - it might be part of the
> > problem.
>
> I seem them as \xFA.  But that's probably because I opened the testfile 
> and vile jumped to utf-8 mode.

odd - I'm displaying 0x80-0x9f as \x80 to \x90 for Latin-1 encoding to
work around the control-characters common in the 8-bit encodings.

Anyway, I've some debugging to do to see what the story is for the
:show-printable

--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net