From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Herring, Davis" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: `read--expression' and `read-minibuffer' Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 13:25:28 +0000 Message-ID: References: <60e5e890-6f50-4f38-a74f-e82ff83b24dc@default> <8e6be928-75ae-4714-bf03-d6505954cf21@default> <10888855-8ce3-648f-82ac-2b9e1409effc@lanl.gov> <91f3ab85-e033-4e1d-a3c2-66c964ea82bc@default> , NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1473256113 6640 195.159.176.226 (7 Sep 2016 13:48:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 13:48:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stefan Monnier , "emacs-devel@gnu.org" To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 07 15:48:26 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bhdDE-0000pb-6c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2016 15:48:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41128 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bhdDC-0000al-2c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2016 09:48:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46923) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bhcrA-0003Q3-Ii for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2016 09:25:37 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bhcr5-0006Bs-DW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2016 09:25:36 -0400 Original-Received: from proofpoint5.lanl.gov ([2001:400:4210:400::a5]:38239) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bhcr5-0006Bn-2n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Sep 2016 09:25:31 -0400 Original-Received: from mailrelay1.lanl.gov (mailrelay1.lanl.gov [128.165.4.101]) by mailgate5.lanl.gov (8.15.0.59/8.15.0.59) with ESMTP id u87DPTqr030462; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 07:25:29 -0600 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailrelay1.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61CBD141D998; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 07:25:29 -0600 (MDT) X-NIE-2-Virus-Scanner: amavisd-new at mailrelay1.lanl.gov Original-Received: from ECS-EXG-P-CH01.win.lanl.gov (ecs-exg-p-ch01.win.lanl.gov [128.165.106.11]) by mailrelay1.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47737141D9A8; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 07:25:29 -0600 (MDT) Original-Received: from ECS-EXG-P-MB01.win.lanl.gov ([169.254.1.34]) by ECS-EXG-P-CH01.win.lanl.gov ([128.165.106.11]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 07:25:29 -0600 Thread-Topic: `read--expression' and `read-minibuffer' Thread-Index: AQHSCLpzJ/p6XNa0yEaWYbTzaFhRNaBt66EAgAANV9w= In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [128.165.106.76] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.15.154, 1.0.3, 0.0.0000 definitions=2016-09-07_07:2016-09-07, 2016-09-07, 1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:400:4210:400::a5 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:207240 Archived-At: [Many variations of the following points snipped.]=0A= =0A= > You spoke of intention to evaluate, as I said. I didn't,=0A= > and still don't, see how such an intention enters into what=0A= > `read--expression' does. I don't even know what such=0A= > intention means, operationally.=0A= =0A= It affects completion, as has already been stated: given=0A= =0A= (comment-c=0A= =0A= as a _form_ (hopefully less ambiguous than "expression"), the only completi= on is `comment-choose-indent'; as a general s-exp, `comment-column' is prob= ably more likely.=0A= =0A= > But if you bring in evaluation to further classify Lisp=0A= > objects then please tell us exactly how those that you=0A= > call "expression" differ with respect to evaluation.=0A= =0A= They have a structure that could possibly evaluate without error? Of cours= e, nothing can check that an evaluation completes without error (without ac= tually evaluating it, which might never complete). So `read--expression' d= oesn't bother checking at all.=0A= =0A= > Does `read--expression' complain that what it read here is=0A= > not an "Elisp expression"? (Nope.)=0A= =0A= It is better to interpret `read--expression' not as "read and return a form= " but rather as "read an s-exp from the user, helping them type a form". I= t really is a question of intent: the caller intends to get a form, so they= make it easy for the user (who is hopefully also intending to enter a form= ) to do so.=0A= =0A= ["they" are "expression"/"form" and "sexp"]=0A= > Apparently, in Emacs-Speak, they are the same. They are=0A= > distinguished from the more general category of Lisp "objects".=0A= =0A= Be careful with the map and the territory: a string for the Lisp reader isn= 't itself a (Lisp) object unless it also exists as a string object in Lisp.= An object results from a read of an s-exp; the words "expression" and "fo= rm" are commonly applied both to the object read (if it "seems" evaluable) = and to the read syntax for it, but the word "object" is not.=0A= =0A= Davis=