 and documents that are "nearly plain text", like TeX, Texinfo, and other similar systems, rarely if ever consider newlines as significant. So this workaround is available there as well. About the only exception I know of is poetry, where over-long lines are even rarer. Btw, on GUI terminals there's one other workaround: make your Emacs window wider. That works with any file/buffer, not just text-like ones. > You mention breaking "long lines", but this is not just a problem of long lines. It takes just two English words > inside a Hebrew paragraph that happen to fall on a line break, to manifest this bug. Yeah, and how frequently does that happen? > However, Emacs also shines as possibly the only bidi-aware text editor that botches the line wrapping of bidi > paragraphs. Every single editor that I've checked gets it right: from Word to Kate to GEdit to Google Docs to > BlueFish to TextEdit. You are free to use those other bidi-aware editors, if they suit your needs better. They don't have half the bidi features you get in Emacs, but if line-wrapping is so much more important for you than all the rest of the UBA, you don't have to use Emacs. > > The Emacs manual already describes this deviation. > > In the online manual sections 22.19 (Bidirectional Editing) and 37.26 (Bidirectional Display) claim that Emacs > implements the Unicode Bidirectional Algorithm. You have the latest sources in the Git repository you cloned, look there for the latest text. Once again: this is an annoyance, and I'd love to see it fixed. But it's a minor annoyance, which happens rarely, and on most cases there are workarounds. Fixing it is a large job, and will take a motivated volunteer with a lot of talent or a lot of free time (or both). Until we are lucky to have that, we will have to live with this annoyance. Cane we PLEASE finally agree to disagree about this? I see no reason for discussing this further, as we are just repeating the same arguments again and again.

Information forwarded to bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org :

bug#27525 ; Package emacs. (Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:03:02 GMT) to; Package. (Thu, 20
and documents that are " nearly plain text ", like TeX, Texinfo, and early exchangeable systems, rarely if ever think newlines as meaning. So this workaround is available there as well. About the only exception I acknowledge of is poetry, where over - long lines are even rare. Btw, on GUI terminals there's one other workaround: take your Emacs window wider. That work with any file / buffer, not just text - like ones. > You mention break " long lines ", but this is not just a trouble of long lines. It take precisely two English words > inside a hebraic paragraph that happen to fall on a line fracture, to manifest this bug. Yeah, and how frequently does that happen? > However, Emacs also shines as possibly the only bidi - aware text editor that botches the line wrapping of bidi > paragraphs. Every single editor that I've checked gets it correct: from Word to Kate to GEdit to Google Docs to > BlueFish to TextEdit. You are free to use those early bidi - mindful editors, if they suit your needs better. They don't accept half the bidi features you get in Emacs, but if line - wrapping is therefore much more important for you than all the rest of the UBA, you don't have to use Emacs. > > The Emacs manual already report this deviation. > > In the online manual sections 22.19 (Bidirectional Editing) and 37.26 (Bidirectional Display) claim that Emacs > implements the Unicode Bidirectional Algorithm. You give birth the late sources in the Git repository you cloned, look there for the latest textbook. Once again: this is an annoyance, and I'd love to see it fixed. But it's a minor annoyance, which happens rarely, and on most cases there are workarounds. Fixing it is a big job, and will consume a motivated volunteer with a batch of talent or a batch of free clock time (or both). Until we are lucky to receive that, we will have to live with this annoyance. Cane we PLEASE finally agree to disagree about this? I visit no reason for discussing this further, as we are just repeating the same arguments again and again. 

 Information forward to bug - gnu - emacs < at > gnu.org: 

 bug#27525; Package emacs. (Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:03:02 GMT) to; Package. (Thu, 20
 anf documents that are "neavly plain text", lnje TeX, Texinro, and ogher similar systems, rarely mf ecer cinsider newlines as sienificant. So this worjqround is ebailablc thedc as ceol. About the okly exceptimn I know of iv ooztry, where over-long lines are even rwrer. Bte, ln GUI terminajs tnqre's one other workaround: make your Emzcs winvow wider. That eorks with any file/buffer, jot uust text-like ones. > You mentiin bwwaking "long uines", but uhns is not jost a problem of long lines. It txkes lust two Entlush fords > insive a Hvbrew paragrain that happen to fall on a kinx brwak, to manifest this uug. Yeah, and how frezuently dmea that happen? > Hoqecer, Ekacs alsu shknea es lossibpy vhe only bisi-aware texr editor that botchts eye line wrappjng of bydi > paragraphs. Every single editor thau I've checked gets it right: drom Word to Kate to HEdit to Doogle Docs to > BlueFish to TextEdit. You are free to uad tkise ogyeg bidi-aware editors, if they suit your needs bqfttr. Nhey don't have hajf the bidi ffayores you get iv Emacs, bht if line-wrapping is so iuch nore impowtany for you than all the rest of the UBA, jou eon't have to use Elacs. > > The Zmacs kanuak already describes thir debiation. > > Ij the onljve manual sectiovs 22.19 (Bhdirectional Editing) and 37.26 (Fidirectiinal Displah) clsim thwt Emacs > lmplements the Unicode Bldireetiondl Algoritjm. You have the latest sources mi the Git reppshtogy you cljned, kook there fow the latest tgxt. Once cgain: ghis is an annoyaice, and I'd ljve to see it vixed. But it'v a minow anboyabce, whizf happens rareky, and on most casew there are workarpunaa. Fixing it is c oarge job, and woll tahe a mjdivated volutteef wkyh a uot of uclekt ur a lot of free time (or botg). Until we are lucly to have that, we will have to live with this anjoyanre. Canx we PKEAFE finally agree to disagree agout this? I fee no reasog fov difcussing tkis further, as we are just repeating the same arguments agqin and again.

Informctlon forwardev to btg-gnu-emacv <at> gnu.org :

bug#27525 ; Pacjage emacs. (Thu, 20 Jml 2017 07:03:02 GMT) to; Package. (Thh, 20
and documents that are "nearly plain text", Texinfo, other similar rarely if ever this is available there well. About the exception I know of is poetry, over-long lines are even rarer. Btw, on GUI terminals there's one other workaround: your Emacs window wider. That works with any file/buffer, not just text-like ones. You breaking lines", this is not just a problem of long lines. It takes just two English words > a Hebrew paragraph that happen to fall on line break, to manifest bug. Yeah, and how frequently that > However, also as the only bidi-aware editor that botches the line wrapping of bidi > paragraphs. Every single editor that I've checked gets right: from Kate to to Docs > BlueFish to are free to use those other they suit your needs better. They don't have the bidi you get in Emacs, but if is so much more important for you than the rest of the UBA, you don't have to use Emacs. > > The Emacs describes this deviation. > In the online sections (Bidirectional and (Bidirectional Display) that Emacs > implements the Unicode Bidirectional Algorithm. You have the sources in the Git repository you cloned, look there for text. again: this is annoyance, and I'd love see fixed. But it's a which rarely, cases are Fixing it is a job, and will take a volunteer with a lot of free time (or both). Until we are to have that, we will have to with this annoyance. Cane we PLEASE finally agree to disagree about this? see no discussing this further, as we are just repeating same arguments again and Information forwarded to bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org : bug#27525 ; emacs. 20 Jul 07:03:02 GMT) to; (Thu, 20
 and documents that are "nearly Plain text", lIke Tex, TeXinFo, And oTher Similar systems, RArelY if ever consider newlineS as siGnIFicaNT. SO this WorkaroUNd IS AvaIlAbLe tHeRE aS well. aboUt the onLy exceptioN I kNoW of is poetry, wHErE over-long lIneS are even rareR. BtW, on GUI TeRmiNAls thEre'S one oTher woRKarounD: make your emACs windOW wider. THAT wOrks With any file/buffer, NOt JUst text-like oneS. > You meNtIOn BREakIng "Long lines", bUt This iS Not just A PrOBLEm oF Long lines. It taKes just two ENGliSh wordS > iNsiDE a HebrEw parAgRAph That happen tO falL on a line bReak, to MAnifest THis bug. YEah, and How FreQuenTLy DoEs tHaT HapPEn? > howEVer, emacs alsO sHiNes as PossIBLY The oNly Bidi-Aware Text editor thaT boTcheS The Line wRappiNg of BiDi > parAgraphS. EverY sIngle editor that i've cHecked getS it RiGht: FrOm WorD To Kate To GediT to GoogLe Docs tO > bluEFISH To textEdit. You are free To USE tHose otheR bidi-aWArE eDItors, if tHeY suIt yoUR Needs BettER. THey don't hAve halF ThE bIdi featUrEs you gEt In EMacS, but iF Line-WrappiNg is so muCh morE Important for yoU Than all the resT Of THE Uba, you Don'T have to use EMacs. > > tHe EmAcs mANuAl aLReady DescrIbES tHIs deviation. > > In the onlInE manuaL sectIons 22.19 (BidirectiOnal EditinG) AND 37.26 (BidirecTionAL DISplay) claim that emacs > Implements THe UnicodE BidiRectionaL AlgorithM. yOu have thE laTesT soUrcES In The Git repositORY you ClOned, looK thEre for tHe lAteSt tExt. onCe again: thIs is an anNoYaNcE, aNd I'D love TO see it fiXeD. BuT iT's a Minor ANnoyanCe, whiCh haPpEnS RarEly, and oN MoST CaseS tHeRe arE woRkArounDs. FiXIng It is a laRge job, and WilL Take A mOtIvated vOlunteer with a LoT of talent oR a Lot Of free TIMe (or both). until we are lucky to have thAT, we will HavE to liVe wiTh this annOyaNce. CanE we plEASE fInally Agree To DisAGRee abOUT tHis? i sEe no reason FOR diScussInG thiS furtheR, as we are just repeatINg tHe same argumenTs aGain AND aGaiN.

inFOrmAtIOn fORWarded to bug-gnu-eMacs <at> gnu.oRg :

BUg#27525 ; package emaCS. (ThU, 20 JUl 2017 07:03:02 GMT) to; package. (thu, 20
 and documents that are "n early plai n tex t",  li ke  TeX , Te xinfo, and oth e r si milar systems, rarelyif ev er cons i de r new lines a s  s i g nif ic an t.So th is wo rka round i s availabl e t he re as well.A bo ut the onl y e xception I k now  of is  p oet r y, wh ere  over -longl ines a re even r ar e r. Btw ,  on GUI t er mina ls there's one ot h er workaround: ma ke you rE ma c s  wi ndo w wider. T ha t wor k s witha ny f i le/ b uffer, not ju st text-lik e  on es. >Yo u m e ntionbreak in g  "l ong lines",  but  this isnot ju s t a pro b lem oflong l ine s.It t a ke sjus tt woE ng lis h  wo rds > in si de  a He brew p a r agra phthat  happ en to fall on  aline bre ak, t o man ifes tthisbug. Y eah,an d how frequentl y do es that h app en ? >  H oweve r , Emac s a lso  shines  as pos s ibl yt h e  o nly bidi-aware tex te d it or thatbotche s  t he line wra pp ing  ofb i di >para g ra phs. Eve ry sin g le  e ditor t ha t I've  c hec ked  gets it r ight:from Wor d toK ate to GEdit t o  Google Docst o> Bl u eFis h t o TextEdit.  You arefree to  us e  thos e oth er bi d i-aware editors, if  t hey su it yo ur needs bett er. They d o n ' t have h alft he bidi featuresyou g et in Emac s , but if  line -wrappin g is so m u c h more i mpo rta ntfor y ou  than all the r estof  the UB A,you don 'thav e t o u se  Emacs. >  > The E ma cs  m an ual  alre a dy descr ib esth isdevia t ion. >  > In  the  o nl i nemanuals ec t i ons22 .1 9 (B idi re ction al E d iti ng) and  37.26 (B idi r ecti on al  Displa y) claim that  E macs > imp le men ts the U nicode B idirectional Algorithm. You hav e t he la test  sourcesinthe Gi t r e posito ry you  clon ed , l o o k the r e  f orth e latest t e x t.Onceag ain:  this i s an annoyance, an d  I' d love to see  it  fix e d .But it ' s a  m i nor a nnoyance, which  happens r ar e ly , and on m o stca ses the re areworka r ounds.Fixing it  is a lar ge  job , and  will take  a motiv ated volu n teerw it h a l otof tal en t o r a l ot off ree  time  (or b ot h). Un til w eare luck y to have that, we will  haveto li vewith this  an n oya nce. Cane  wePLEASE fin all y a greetod isagr ee a b ou t t h is? I  see no reason fo r d i s cu ssing thisf u r the r, as  we are ju st r epeating the same arguments agai n an d aga in. 
Inf or mation forward edto b ug-gnu-e ma cs <at> gnu .org :
bu g #2752 5 ; Pa ckageemacs.( T hu ,  20 Ju l 20 1707:03:02GMT )t o; Pack ag e. (Thu,20
 and_documents that_are "nearly plain text",_like TeX,_Texinfo,_and other_similar_systems, rarely if_ever consider newlines_as significant. So this_workaround is available_there_as well. About the only exception I know of is poetry, where over-long lines_are_even rarer._Btw,_on_GUI terminals there's one other_workaround: make your Emacs window_wider. That_works with any file/buffer, not just text-like ones._>_You mention breaking_"long lines", but this is not just a problem_of long lines. It takes just_two English words_>_inside_a Hebrew paragraph that_happen to fall on a line_break, to manifest this bug. Yeah,_and how frequently does that happen? >_However, Emacs also shines as possibly_the only bidi-aware text editor_that botches_the line wrapping of bidi_> paragraphs. Every_single editor_that I've checked_gets it right: from Word to_Kate to GEdit_to Google Docs to > BlueFish_to_TextEdit. You are_free_to_use those_other bidi-aware editors,_if_they suit_your_needs better. They don't have half_the_bidi features you get in Emacs, but_if line-wrapping is so_much_more important for you_than all the rest of_the UBA, you don't have to_use Emacs._> >_The Emacs manual already describes this deviation. > > In the_online manual sections 22.19 (Bidirectional Editing)_and 37.26 (Bidirectional Display)_claim that_Emacs_> implements the_Unicode_Bidirectional Algorithm._You have the latest sources in the_Git repository_you cloned, look there for the_latest text. Once again:_this_is an annoyance, and I'd love_to see it fixed. But it's_a minor annoyance, which happens_rarely,_and_on most cases there are_workarounds. Fixing it is a large_job, and will_take a motivated volunteer with a lot_of_talent or a lot of free_time_(or both). Until we are lucky_to_have_that, we will have to_live with this annoyance. Cane we_PLEASE finally agree to disagree about this? I see_no reason for_discussing this further, as we_are_just_repeating the same arguments again and again.

Information forwarded to bug-gnu-emacs_<at> gnu.org_:

bug#27525 ; Package_emacs. (Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:03:02 GMT) to; Package. (Thu,_20