From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Ken Manheimer" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: allout mode patch for a few small bugs and cleanup of mode docstring Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:04:13 -0500 Message-ID: <2cd46e7f0611291604q5f10e212gbf005b2ed1844bd1@mail.gmail.com> References: <2cd46e7f0611291251g23826b96m9d44b727d1e6eaf1@mail.gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1164845133 15640 80.91.229.2 (30 Nov 2006 00:05:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:05:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs-Devel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 30 01:05:27 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GpZQV-0006g0-8a for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:05:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GpZQU-0001IR-Qs for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:05:18 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GpZPV-0000Mi-FY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:04:17 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GpZPS-0000JW-Vg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:04:16 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GpZPS-0000JI-Qw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:04:14 -0500 Original-Received: from [66.249.92.174] (helo=ug-out-1314.google.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1GpZPS-00085i-9X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:04:14 -0500 Original-Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j3so2126196ugf for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:04:13 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=cvwOUWny8Vpu4zV4fBNsG7ZD75/bUZiQv6vK4ib/5DQbCBJgwDgq6/o4rZkd2L029BhPPtDbVaSVTcA5EpEJaRgfCIKTyNGff6TlzJvZQ8cjgBY0ex0AAqx406bhpCaUEVhLR3XzSn0YNDMW9IN4UYflxj5ip9wExCuye9E4NdM= Original-Received: by 10.78.178.5 with SMTP id a5mr2835539huf.1164845053155; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:04:13 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.78.198.11 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:04:13 -0800 (PST) Original-To: "Kim F. Storm" In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:63087 Archived-At: On 11/29/06, Kim F. Storm wrote: > I see that you changed several occurrences of ... ( ... ) ... to > .. \( ... \) ... in the doc string. > > You only need to quote a ( in the rare case that it occurs in > the first column of a line, and you never need to quote a ). > > Appendix D.6 of the Emacs Lisp Reference Manual says: > > * If a line in a documentation string begins with an > open-parenthesis, write a backslash before the open-parenthesis, > like this: > > The argument FOO can be either a number > \(a buffer position) or a string (a file name). > > This prevents the open-parenthesis from being treated as the start > of a defun (*note Defuns: (emacs)Defuns.). thanks for the tip - i've wondered about a few nuances concerning escaping parens, and i might as well ask, while the issue is raised. first, does it hurt to escape open parens excessively? i ask because i deliberately tend to quote all leading opens, so i can flow docstring paragraphs without worry about surprises. it would not be a hardship to be more discriminating, but still wonder if there's a drawback beyond the increased mystery (onions-in-the-varnish wise) of unnecessary escaping. i'm pretty haphazard about escaping the close parens, but decided to shoot for consistency in this last edit - apparently in the wrong direction. (i don't see any prohibition against escaping the close parens, but i suppose it's more onions-in-the-varnish noise.) it would be nice if there were a way to get paren matching for an escaped open paren, and i gather there currently is no provision for that. is that right? just curious, mostly. -- ken ken.manheimer@gmail.com http://myriadicity.net