From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#3516: 23.0.94; function key names in Info Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:33:32 -0700 Message-ID: <8AF132787AD0455189C4001684BDE62F@us.oracle.com> References: Reply-To: Drew Adams , 3516@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1244735932 17785 80.91.229.12 (11 Jun 2009 15:58:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:58:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 3516@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 11 17:58:49 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MEmft-0005Gp-Ti for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:58:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59381 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MEmft-0004vs-CC for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:58:45 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MEmee-0003nA-5u for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:57:28 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MEmeZ-0003i1-36 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:57:27 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51900 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MEmeY-0003hl-LA for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:57:22 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu ([138.23.92.77]:41335) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MEmeY-0004vK-0O for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:57:22 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu (rzlab.ucr.edu [127.0.0.1]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with ESMTP id n5BFvJsx020803; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:57:20 -0700 Original-Received: (from debbugs@localhost) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n5BFe5KG018233; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:40:05 -0700 X-Loop: owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Resent-To: bug-submit-list@donarmstrong.com Resent-CC: Emacs Bugs Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:40:05 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com X-Emacs-PR-Message: followup 3516 X-Emacs-PR-Package: emacs X-Emacs-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 3516-submit@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com id=B3516.124473442317498 (code B ref 3516); Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:40:05 +0000 Original-Received: (at 3516) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 11 Jun 2009 15:33:43 +0000 X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.5 Bayes not run. spammytokens:Tokens not available. hammytokens:Tokens not available. Original-Received: from acsinet12.oracle.com (acsinet12.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with ESMTP id n5BFXc3E017485 for <3516@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:33:40 -0700 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by acsinet12.oracle.com (Switch-3.3.1/Switch-3.3.1) with ESMTP id n5BFTMWj013518 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:29:23 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt009.oracle.com (abhmt009.oracle.com [141.146.116.18]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.3.1/Switch-3.3.1) with ESMTP id n5BFYeM6023811; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:34:40 GMT Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/130.35.179.10) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:33:28 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcnqgVEnDZnzjtdCQY6dbBgWwMXdEwAInUNQ In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Source-IP: abhmt009.oracle.com [141.146.116.18] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A010204.4A3123C9.0202:SCFSTAT5015188,ss=1,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:57:27 -0400 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:28655 Archived-At: > > > Please show here the Texinfo sources, > Anyway, at least provide these quotes with context. I don't have the context anymore, beyond what I originally reported: emacs -Q C-h r g keys That provides the context of at least one node that appears to have problematic occurrences. (See also bug #3508, which identified other such contexts.) > Grepping through Info files for "" and the likes is no fun. ... for anyone. Likewise, C-s searching for "<[-_a-zA-Z]+>" or some such. > > For my part, I was referring to (or trying to refer to) passages > > that talk about keys, not characters. To me, key sequences > > should be wrapped in `...', even when they have <...>. To me, > > the key sequence should be written `' even if the > > character is written SPC. > > We use and such likes for keyboard keys that are labeled with > more than a single character. You know the conventions we use better than I, Eli. For my part, there is a difference between three things: 1. character: ESC, SPC 2. physical keyboard key (e.g. labeled): Esc, Page Up (not sure how Emacs denotes these) 3. key sequence: `', `', `' What I'm referring to is #3. I believe that was the sense intended in the doc here. It is the sense that is meant in most occurrences in the doc, in any case. I have no problem with #1 and #2 being written without `...'. It is cases of #3 that I'm concerned about. If you look at node `Keys', for instance, I believe that the occurrences of should really be `', since they refer to key sequences, not to characters or physical keys. [I wouldn't propose changing notations now, but I will point out that if we used a very different notation for each of #1, 2, 3 there might be less confusion. For instance, if we used `' and `' for key sequences (as we do for `'), Esc, Page Up, and Space Bar for key names, and SPC and ESC for characters. Or some other such more obvious difference.] > The issue here is to prevent confusion > on the reader's part between a single key labeled "ESC" and a sequence > of 3 keys E, S, C. If you mean the physical key labeled "Esc" or "Escape", then I think we write that as ESC. If you mean the key sequence (i.e. hitting that physical key), then I think we write that `'. If you mean the key sequence of hitting the keys E, S, C, in order, then I think we write that `E S C'. But again, you're the expert here, not I. I'm just pointing out that there seem to be places where we mean the key sequence `', `' etc. but we have (mistakenly) written the key name ESC, RET etc. Or else we have written (incorrectly, IMO) the hybrid form , , when we mean the key sequence. See bug #3508, for instance: DA>>> Similarly, should be `'. DA>>> Similarly, should be `' (in node CDLaTeX mode). CY>> This is not necessary. With few exceptions, we leave don't CY>> enclose @key in @kbd if it's the only key in the key sequence. DA> I don't think that's true. We write `i', not i, for command DA> `Info-index'. That's the general notation rule, and we DA> respect it generally. I think that what Yidong is saying is wrong, but that's my opinion - I can't speak for what the established convention is. The convention _should_ be consistent, IMO: _always_ use `...' for a key sequence. There is enough confusion between #1, 2, and 3 (above) due to similar names (char ESC, physical key ESC, key sequence ESC), without using a hybrid notation that encourages further confusion. > When a key is labeled with a single character, this confusion cannot > happen, so <..> is not used in that case, because it would just make > the reading harder with no good reason. Even for a key labeled with a single character, we generally do (and always should IMO) denote the key sequence using `...': `g', not g for `Info-goto-node'. > Likewise, key sequences such as C-k are not single keys, you actually > use 2 or more keys to type them. So <..> is inappropriate in that > context as well. Sure, but for the key sequence, we wrap with `...': `C-k', `', `'. > Thus, single keys and key sequences get different markup. When you say "key" there is an ambiguity. You could be referring to the physical key (e.g. labeled "Page Up") or to the key sequence - the act of hitting the physical key. Yes, it's handy to sometimes use "keys" as a shortcut for "key sequences" - I don't have a problem with that generally. But in a context where we might be talking also about physical keys (or about characters), we need to carefully distinguish. Distinct notation helps distinguish.