From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Phil Sainty Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master ff4de1b: Fix quoting style in Lisp comments Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2021 00:38:50 +1200 Message-ID: <2974ba74db56df1eeb0090cbab5b8177@webmail.orcon.net.nz> References: <20210912165141.9491.52637@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20210912165143.5BC1E20A5E@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <47d6e9a6-f334-eda9-2e08-0a946e51fc4a@yandex.ru> <83v934emk7.fsf@gnu.org> <87sfy8d7oo.fsf@gnus.org> <9194fc93-fb9c-000f-a35a-321ddd259893@gmx.at> <8735q5yi63.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <83czp9by3s.fsf@gnu.org> <05cbffe0-f89b-ff54-64f5-cd1d11bac4f5@yandex.ru> <831r5pbt7j.fsf@gnu.org> <83wnnhacy4.fsf@gnu.org> <40937e22-994f-466c-87be-4f70a522118a@yandex.ru> <83pmt790cz.fsf@gnu.org> <41b90a60-04ab-8ef1-24ee-ac30d39640aa@yandex.ru> <837dff8niq.fsf@gnu.org> <8a9a14b9-c562-8813-daea-28108f3173f3@yandex.ru> <8335q38ktr.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="38816"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Orcon Webmail Cc: rms@gnu.org, stefan@marxist.se, juri@linkov.net, rudalics@gmx.at, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, Dmitry Gutov , larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 17 14:41:28 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mRDBH-0009sI-L1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 14:41:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51796 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mRDBG-000116-3d for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 08:41:26 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41898) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mRD9K-0007oa-Kq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 08:39:29 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp-1.orcon.net.nz ([60.234.4.34]:59241) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mRD9D-00063x-76; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 08:39:23 -0400 Original-Received: from [10.253.37.70] (port=59570 helo=webmail.orcon.net.nz) by smtp-1.orcon.net.nz with esmtpa (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mRD8k-0007iv-Cp; Sat, 18 Sep 2021 00:38:50 +1200 Original-Received: from ip-203-94-48-127.kinect.net.nz ([203.94.48.127]) via [10.253.37.253] by webmail.orcon.net.nz with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Sat, 18 Sep 2021 00:38:50 +1200 In-Reply-To: <8335q38ktr.fsf@gnu.org> X-Sender: psainty@orcon.net.nz X-GeoIP: -- Received-SPF: pass client-ip=60.234.4.34; envelope-from=psainty@orcon.net.nz; helo=smtp-1.orcon.net.nz X-Spam_score_int: -25 X-Spam_score: -2.6 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:274867 Archived-At: On 2021-09-18 00:09, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> I don't see anybody concur with your stance in this particular >> discussion, and if you search the old one, I think it was mostly Paul >> (?), and even he was really arguing toward something different, in a >> different context as well (plain text files). > > It doesn't matter. This is a decision we already made, so just saying > you don't like it is not good enough. We need a much stronger reason > to reverse previous decisions. I might have missed something, but I think almost everyone else in this thread has expressed some degree of surprise/confusion that elisp comments would be categorised as "plain text" and/or the notion that the previous decision was ever intended to apply to those. If the only strong reason for making a change here is to adhere to a decision that nobody (or almost nobody) was *actually* trying to make (where elisp comments are concerned), then that would seem like a very strong reason to stop and reassess. I don't know the answer, but I'm seeing a lot of confusion. Can we at minimum get confirmation from the people who were arguing for fancy quotes in those old discussions that they wanted *this* as well? Because if those people weren't trying to change elisp comments, then I don't think the old decision is relevant here, in which case nothing would be "reversed" by maintaining the traditional quoting style. -Phil