Annoyances from Implementation of Canonical Equivalence (was: Pure Regular Expression Engines and Literal Clusters)

[Eli Zaretskii via Unicode]

> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 20:52:15 +0100
> From: Richard Wordingham via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org>
> 
> > > > I'm well aware of the official position.  However, when we
> > > > attempted to implement it unconditionally in Emacs, some people
> > > > objected, and brought up good reasons.  You can, of course, elect
> > > > to disregard this experience, and instead learn it from your
> > > > own.  
> > > 
> > > Is there a good record of these complaints anywhere?  
> > 
> > You could look up these discussions:
> > 
> >   https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2016-02/msg00189.html
> >   https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2016-02/msg00506.html
> 
> These are complaints about primary-level searches, not canonical
> equivalence.

Not sure what you call primary-level searches, but if you deduced the
complaints were only about searches for base characters, then that's
not so.  They are long discussions with many sub-threads, so it might
be hard to find the specific details you are looking for.

However, the conclusion was very firm, and since we made the folding
optional 3 years ago, we had no complaints.