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#13219: 24.3.50; missing `...' in Emacs manual Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:49:21 -0800 Message-ID: References: <87k3sbhloq.fsf@gnu.org> <4D17A9193B6E4B82A8F138631D887384@us.oracle.com> <83fw2zn4if.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1356109553 16511 80.91.229.3 (21 Dec 2012 17:05:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:05:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 13219@debbugs.gnu.org, cyd@gnu.org To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 21 18:06:08 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Tm62x-0004Eh-Gq for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:06:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41760 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tm62j-0006HG-Ks for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:05:53 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40341) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tm62b-0006Fp-Fa for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:05:51 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tm62U-0006dK-FI for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:05:45 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:44166) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Tm5nA-0002WJ-9t for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:49:48 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tm5nO-0000qf-9f for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:50:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:50:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 13219 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: notabug Original-Received: via spool by 13219-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B13219.13561085853235 (code B ref 13219); Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:50:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 13219) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Dec 2012 16:49:45 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54417 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tm5n7-0000q8-DC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:49:45 -0500 Original-Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:48439) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tm5n5-0000q0-4Y for 13219@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:49:44 -0500 Original-Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id qBLGnQRt029581 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:49:27 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt357.oracle.com (acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBLGnQJ9002139 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:49:26 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt104.oracle.com (abhmt104.oracle.com [141.146.116.56]) by acsmt357.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id qBLGnPKW003373; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:49:25 -0600 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/71.202.147.44) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:49:25 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <83fw2zn4if.fsf@gnu.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Thread-Index: Ac3fXMgOt7XLERm9TBmU0ef0QiOEHgAOgLFw X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:68862 Archived-At: > > > It is the convention in the manual not to insert `..' > > > around single function keys which are already printed > > > like . 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, , , , , etc. are _not_ "function keys".) > We had this argument before. 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 and - 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 `' if you insist on the useless angle brackets). Whether it is `E' or `ESC' (or `'...). 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 , `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: `', `E S C', `E SPC S C'.