Subject: Re: bug#27544: 25.1; Visualization of Unicode bidirectional marks

From: Filipp Gunbin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:14:03 +0300

On 02/12/2021 11:04 +0200, Juri Linkov wrote:

>>> > Thanks.  But wouldn't glyphless-hex-display-mode be a better name?
>>> > glyphless-display-mode doesn't really say what it does to glyphless
>>> > characters.
>>>
>>> It doesn't hexify the glyphs, it uses `acronym'.  But I thought we might
>>> allow that to be customised if somebody asks for it, which is why it's
>>> not called `glyphless-acronym-display-mode'.
>>
>> But glyphless-display-mode has no mnemonic value.  We already display
>> glyphless characters, so this name doesn't help at all.
>>
>> Does anyone have suggestions for a better name?
>
> "glyphless-display-mode" looks fine - I read it as to mean
> a mode that defines how to display glyphless chars.
> It could also provide a defcustom with a choice from
> glyphless-char-display-method.

Maybe glyphless-char-display-mode?  I'm sure that was considered, and
dropped, but glyphless-display-mode is just too broad...  Is it a mode
with no glyphs displayed?