From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Interpret #r"..." as a raw string Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2021 12:24:17 +0200 Message-ID: <83mtvgwpf2.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20210227.031857.1351840144740816188.conao3@gmail.com> <83pn0mppjd.fsf@gnu.org> <87zgzqz6mu.fsf@db48x.net> <83h7ls67rv.fsf@gnu.org> <83y2f2xc4n.fsf@gnu.org> <83tupowuud.fsf@gnu.org> <874khowqyh.fsf@db48x.net> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="3437"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: matt@rfc20.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, conao3@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca To: Daniel Brooks Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 06 11:25:26 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 1lIU7i-0000nu-8T for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 06 Mar 2021 11:25:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50602 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lIU7h-0007L6-98 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 06 Mar 2021 05:25:25 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38866) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lIU6x-0006q5-7s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Mar 2021 05:24:39 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:36803) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lIU6w-0006AK-68; Sat, 06 Mar 2021 05:24:38 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:4845 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lIU6p-0005Vn-0i; Sat, 06 Mar 2021 05:24:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: <874khowqyh.fsf@db48x.net> (message from Daniel Brooks on Sat, 06 Mar 2021 01:51:02 -0800) 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:266065 Archived-At: > From: Daniel Brooks > Cc: rms@gnu.org, matt@rfc20.org, conao3@gmail.com, > monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2021 01:51:02 -0800 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > Yes, see above (and in general, see the "Mutability" node in the ELisp > > manual). > > > I'm still not sure I understand how to correct that. If using "string > > constant" is what is needed, then it's easy to switch to that > > terminology throughout. But I'm not yet sure this is the way. > > I don't think that "constant" is the right word to use. After all, the > string that you get from a string literal can be modified just like a > string from any other source. That's a separate issue, and that horse has been beaten to death already, with the current ELisp manual's text that talks of "immutable" objects being the best result we could come up with that leaves everybody with at least a partial satisfaction. Please let's not start that discussion again. Let's agree that the word "constant" in the context of this discussion is a purely syntactic term, it has nothing to do with the object's mutability.