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 18:00:03 -0500 Message-ID: <87y3komb9o.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> <871sigohv9.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <1a1fbaea-f291-414d-aaef-bf41ea4a5873@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 1516748429 22736 195.159.176.226 (23 Jan 2018 23:00:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 23:00:29 +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 Wed Jan 24 00:00:24 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 1ee7Y3-0004y1-Re for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 00:00:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59608 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ee7a4-0005K3-9N for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:02:16 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42393) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ee7Yx-0004hT-VD for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:01:12 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ee7Yt-0008Bc-RR for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:01:08 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:60453) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ee7Yt-0008Aq-Ir for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:01:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ee7Yr-0003XO-Ov for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:01:03 -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 23:01:01 +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=B30217.151674841413534 (code B ref 30217); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 23:01:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 30217) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jan 2018 23:00:14 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40117 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ee7Y5-0003WE-RL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:00:14 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-it0-f42.google.com ([209.85.214.42]:42000) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ee7Y3-0003W0-Tb for 30217@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:00:12 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-it0-f42.google.com with SMTP id p139so2986104itb.1 for <30217@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:00:11 -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=oLC0cqWZ7GY9TcbSBU1x6aWLjDdFYY1L00DkN6HgD2k=; b=rW5IjzL8tX7f2qZqg4UI4ldKqIm1uUTgbt3R2PONtSjYlAI2dQf189u13STpibWFdZ YUA66fAPZ2gOcYxfpmIM2EpMWJXL8hHNaFGwpN9OqPDvYDoNTNM3EbRgp4KykKH18G3v pXoCVEiPpeYnI7ocnSr3PzRu/AzXreyZdvyujPgr4TqafPgqt2VFoikq92awSFGz/0k3 dgh/2IV9sSbBzktZUfwtFwUn/5jgjf2DY08x+UvlpWZempTajsWSCZaDnnG37Ej1qgGo Vu0HiPlPGbM8FrajFgslr3Qw3DApzuq3xDSOe2rn4x7bbu0BK8F5qbgqFQQcRkv3yoPo +HYw== 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=oLC0cqWZ7GY9TcbSBU1x6aWLjDdFYY1L00DkN6HgD2k=; b=fn/GTsa4LxV1N8KMK2f7IPnVD19kzxb1LH4udSuVWmURoa7TgrZ6YDpNCa4MuO+Jg3 dJ/qWAuHETFMrr6XnOsEvMJbZml2AmCsAYM3IqOU9LnXwwT9DSwSnjTroe/oFBk8ckHJ fxIkchMy3D1ICdiUaUd2jRwZAwC91HIxA61xQxux88c9sjyYeJV4dKzHBSXuojcaY9sL 3Jkv9+3bjHxPXwW38g1QxJl95UEPfE+Cp3rnNQzmcTmMgI9xkkHOD8Qtv7ishgxbTEJI zqM/ipO6OUqd2mHK5ST4M2ZGHY+GJLt1py0m2WH0+JqJx+uUEu3uFx7lRpkPeG3Ef5eE IQ/g== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytdLvUMBcWJwaS94XWq5Xnpn0V393R9J2uC+a6WBPJVp/Sd5DphC pHGCyLkG1isPe6zEN/vDh4LmOw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227vLBM0qUN3IT04qTg/f2XMbgUeIvs188WadAh3FNHAD1RoIVQQ4gGLfEsoz3jK/at5GdJvXg== X-Received: by 10.36.176.8 with SMTP id d8mr1918914itf.63.1516748405943; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:00:05 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from zebian ([45.2.119.34]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id v68sm2286047ioi.83.2018.01.23.15.00.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:00:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1a1fbaea-f291-414d-aaef-bf41ea4a5873@default> (Drew Adams's message of "Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:53:49 -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:142454 Archived-At: On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Drew Adams wrote: > An Emacs-Lisp file can contain pretty much anything, > including lots of natural-language text. Are we now > issuing warnings even for "smart quotes" in comments > and strings? Errors will be issued, but only for those occurring at the beginning of a symbol. String and comment contents will remain unaffected. >> it produces an obscure error message. >> >> The Emacs 25 error for the expression in question is >> (wrong-number-of-arguments setq 31) > > Which tells you pretty much that setq is missing an > argument or has too many, which makes you look at its > arguments. Not so obscure. And accurate. And yet, Alan said This has wasted a lot of time identifying the problem, and fruitlessly searching for a solution in the Emacs and Elisp manuals, etc. So maybe it's accurate in a narrow technical sense, but not in a practically useful one. > (setq =E2=80=99bar 42) > (setq foo =E2=80=99bar) > > That's perfectly fine Lisp, even if it might not be > what some might expect. But now, after your "fix", > the first sexp raises an error - at read time, no less. Yes, that code no longer works, you would have to write (setq \=E2=80=99bar 42) (setq foo \=E2=80=99bar) I don't consider this a big loss. As far as I can see, this will just make it harder to write obfuscated lisp code (although there will remain plenty of other ways to obfuscate lisp code). > And this still raises no error: > (setq a=E2=80=99bar 42). Yes, it would be more difficult implementation-wise to catch that case, and it seems much less likely to come up in practice. > Aside from the error/warning, such _escaping_ is another > bad idea. It too subtracts from Lisp (while adding > nonsense to it). Nothing about escaping has changed. > IMHO, this "fix" - all of its parts - should be reverted [...] > To be clear, though, I'm in favor of neither of those [...] > To be really clear, the fix proposed should be removed. Thanks for trying to be clear, but repeating yourself like this just makes your message longer, and therefore harder to comprehend. I would really appreciate it if you would write shorter and more focused messages, with less emotional rhetoric. Keep the "emotional temperature" low (see https://freenode.net/changuide, which is about IRC, but the same principles apply to email conversations). >> 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. > > There are lots of chars that can be confused, especially > given the possibility of different fonts. I didn't even > mention other variants of brackets (aka square brackets), > braces (aka curly brackets), angle brackets, etc. > > Would you try to protect a user from the confusion of > copy+pasting FULLWIDTH LEFT CURLY BRACKET FF5B=EF=BD=9B in place > of LEFT CURLY BRACKET 7B { in a doc string ("... \\{...}") > or in a regexp? Or of using LEFT WHITE SQUARE BRACKET > 301A =E3=80=9A in place of [ in a vector? I don't plan to spend any effort towards that, no, although I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it.