From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Noam Postavsky Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#30217: Ambiguity in NEWS in emacs-26.0.91 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:54:34 -0500 Message-ID: <871sigohv9.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> References: <20180122221743.GB4888@ACM> <5074511f-b3b3-45aa-80b4-130be08f30ec@default> <87efmho17g.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <4c079376-7659-4962-aa73-39a4b4ed76e0@default> <878tcpnyio.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <132fe701-a996-4708-bf39-4ee95230b8fa@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1516712001 9214 195.159.176.226 (23 Jan 2018 12:53:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:53:21 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.90 (gnu/linux) Cc: Alan Mackenzie , 30217@debbugs.gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 23 13:53:16 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edy4a-0001dA-E0 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:53:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56563 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edy6a-0008LF-PV for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:55:12 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43151) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edy6U-0008Kv-Db for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:55:07 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edy6Q-0007Mj-H3 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:55:06 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:59479) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edy6Q-0007MV-D4 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:55:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edy6Q-0004G2-3M for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:55:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Noam Postavsky Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:55:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 30217 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 30217-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B30217.151671208516336 (code B ref 30217); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:55:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 30217) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jan 2018 12:54:45 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39143 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edy69-0004FQ-C2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:54:45 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-io0-f182.google.com ([209.85.223.182]:36914) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edy67-0004FE-Hh for 30217@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:54:43 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-io0-f182.google.com with SMTP id f89so816098ioj.4 for <30217@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 04:54:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WL4eoFiw6CDJneq8E973gcB/97AqR4R+4Gch+5TZG3k=; b=t+2agZylovDsy5z492Y3PYEOFlF8V2e8daxRFlSLy57pButptAEoq+AS/SM7qiQ1Zk VVizhCwn3snTdS6s26sAc1TqeI9d69VbDnO6GoHqM9K/O5NS1WawLg9aDfq6Ix2qzpKx 07PD8w/3ZEO0OmDzw6L57x3M0pwtuuWunJPHg6w2axdUX75IcnbGs4QV+i/jHrIQgBdr coRQdXYo//QHluk0OCGuowihZG5VCfqjPc5+1gPAMe3bXJiqVux15a11Gh2Dezv0hLSg HJJd+N27tjm7oHcO9fDMuGV/t/QLLNDJnbNnKfJueOWAXTAIHkR5J62c1ww0tlaO810x Oq6w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=WL4eoFiw6CDJneq8E973gcB/97AqR4R+4Gch+5TZG3k=; b=fxLznO0zLYGA3W6kgLhVamO+7cM4XPKw7yVhDSLCcLDSkDvXgmsrIjPRow5xbO2CsK zknavnvDcNRsd9NRLy6onSXavIakVFLf6839PnEqccOvS+Di9UjPkGcOLWvCz6q41Eb4 obKzrSbvJZ0I5e/CsDawv0DRbwDnhTpK2ANyvmjhe96CyOU2l4Bvs2WbTsvG4//CykaL QvQ+rQDTuMA8f2j8jOZPJewQdBGP2rnJvhwPYKVz0XJQnWPkWx8MFbdSGhoIauOlwHp7 LANYVYrgxftM/LF0n/Yz8+OHApAJTGqh4EBlnjOVdKq5NXTNnKujCpvKMjXod9j2XVYb 22Fw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytc1+//WXUmjaWenUqdLN533N01WFNbXvLUKoWEPt+sJhLmRYbrb VD1AXzsnZWfhdnyDHIw5NtMI0A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226jQBOTvmjxEtQnaHaoX6fxHg7YTDfzq+dYjzU1uP9gxohdFrsGd2kx5UdaXkr/TMbIfIh1QQ== X-Received: by 10.107.137.26 with SMTP id l26mr3583784iod.108.1516712077419; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 04:54:37 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from zebian ([45.2.119.34]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id w192sm9332078iof.32.2018.01.23.04.54.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 04:54:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <132fe701-a996-4708-bf39-4ee95230b8fa@default> (Drew Adams's message of "Mon, 22 Jan 2018 22:07:18 -0800 (PST)") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:142424 Archived-At: Drew Adams writes: >> To give a less confusing error in cases like Bug#2967 and Bug#23425. > > Seriously? This is an absolutely horrible "fix" for each > of those problems. This "cure" is worse than either of > those diseases, and as we all know, I think such diseases > are pretty awful. > > The error message seems to be _super_ confusing. It gives > no indication of problems such as those bugs, and it does > not begin to enlighten anyone about the confusion at their > heart. The OP of Bug#2967 says I think it would be good if emacs looked for smart quotes in .emacs files and gave a warning or notice if it detected them. This would help troubleshooting. Which is exactly what's being done now. The OP of Bug#23425 says When this output is fed back into Emacs with M-:, it produces an obscure error message. The Emacs 25 error for the expression in question is (wrong-number-of-arguments setq 31) In Emacs 26.0.91, it is (invalid-read-syntax "strange quote" "=E2=80=99") I think this is an improvement, since it does, in fact, indicate there is a problematic use of =E2=80=99. Why do you think the signalling an error in this case is a bad idea? > If no one has a real fix for such bugs yet then please just > leave them open until someone comes up with a good idea. > This "fix" is not a good idea - for those bugs at least. > > If this fix has some other purpose, then let's please > know what that is and talk about it. > > But if such problems are the only reason for this "fix" > then please consider getting rid of such silly and useless > escaping and just change the error message I don't quite understand what you mean by "getting rid of... escaping" but keeping the error message. It sounds like a you are contradicting yourself. > to make clear just what confusion it is meant to address: say that the > character is not an ascii apostrophe or whatever, if that confusion is > the real problem this is trying to solve. Changing the error message is always possible, of course. I'm not sure if bringing "ascii" into it would make things clearer though. Concrete suggestions welcome. > And besides - where do you stop doing this kind of thing? > > Do we do something similar for characters that can > be mistaken for a period, in case you use one in an > attempt at dotted-pair syntax? > > Do we do something similar for chars that can be > mistaken for a comma, inside backquoted sexps? > > Do we do something similar for chars that can be > mistaken for a backquote? An at-sign? Ordinary > parentheses? Maybe everything in the "Unicode confusables" listing? Practically speaking, I've never heard of problems with other characters, except perhaps in programming "puzzles", obfuscated code contents and the like. > I really hope you reconsider this. To me it looks > like an ugly hack that can bring only harm (including > more, not less, confusion), not good. Do you have any specific harms/confusion in mind?