bug#13219: 24.3.50; missing `...' in Emacs manual

["Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> > > It is the convention in the manual not to insert `..' 
> > > around single function keys which are already printed
> > > like <this>.  Not a bug (and no bike-shedding please).
> > 
> > See attached screenshot.  Are you perhaps trying to make a 
> > virtue (and a convention) out of mistake?  Do you honestly
> > think it is more readable to have these exceptions?
> 
> Are you referring to the highlight?  If so, who or what did the
> highlighting of `..' strings in that screenshot?  I don't see such
> highlighting in "emacs -Q".

No, I was not referring to the highlight (which comes from my code).  The
highlighting just points out more clearly the exceptional treatment (kludge)
when denoting single-key sequences of "function keys".

(BTW, <ESC>, <RET>, <SPC>, <DEL>, <TAB> etc. are _not_ "function keys".)

> We had this argument before.  <FOO> is a name of a single key.  We
> don't quote single keys named by their labels, only key sequences.

Right, you don't.  That just says that you have implemented the kludge as your
convention.  Repeating what the status quo is is not an argument in favor of it.

Except that you _do_, for most keys: `a', `@', `8' are all single keys named by
their labels.  Or if you want to use angle brackets or some other convention to
distinguish physical keys from key sequences, then do it consistently for both
<ESC> and <a> - versus key sequences `ESC' and `a'.

So you don't quote single-key key sequences for certain keys.  That's true.  But
you should.  The status quote is a hodge-podge.

A key sequence of a single key is a key sequence.  And it should be handled the
same as any other key sequence wrt notation, whether the key is `f' or `f1' (or
`<f1>' if you insist on the useless angle brackets).  Whether it is `E' or `ESC'
(or `<ESC>'...).

The current policy is in fact "We don't quote single-key key sequences ...
unless they are keys like `a', `8', `*', etc., IOW most keys."  We don't ...
except we do most of the time.

It's a dumb policy, IMHO.  You use one kind of quotation, `...', to talk about
the `a' key (sequence) and another kind of quotation, <...>, to talk about the
`ESC' key (sequence).

That's totally unnecessarily, confusing, and offends Occam's razor.  But I
understand that you will not be convinced.  As you say, we have had this
discussion before.

And no, this has nothing to do with the difference between a physical key and a
key sequence.  I'm talking about key sequences, which include single-key
sequences such as `a' and `ESC' and `f10'.

We should have a single, consistent notation for all key sequences.  There is no
need for a double standard here, and with no need there is also no reason for
it.

You know full well that there is no ambiguity in using `...' for all key
sequences.  In particular, e.g. (yes, we've been through this before too), `ESC'
is a single-key sequence, `E S C' is a 3-key sequence, and `E SPC S C' is a
4-key sequence.

Today you write <ESC>, `E S C', and `E SPC S C'.  Lose the brackets and get
consistent.  Or as this bug report states, at least get consistent in quoting
all key sequences: `<ESC>', `E S C', `E SPC S C'.