From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Noam Postavsky Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Change of Lisp syntax for "fancy" quotes in Emacs 27? Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:43:00 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83y3bc2378.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1539096122 21127 195.159.176.226 (9 Oct 2018 14:42:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 14:42:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Drew Adams , Emacs developers To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 09 16:41:58 2018 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 1g9tCv-0005MU-Bw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2018 16:41:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51929 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g9tF1-0006UN-W2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2018 10:44:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48624) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g9tEQ-0006UD-BT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2018 10:43:31 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g9tEM-0003x6-F1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2018 10:43:30 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ot1-f53.google.com ([209.85.210.53]:33435) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g9tE9-0003bd-13; Tue, 09 Oct 2018 10:43:13 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-ot1-f53.google.com with SMTP id q50so1898249otd.0; Tue, 09 Oct 2018 07:43:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aHMe5CZVmOzMm5XdZbiLAGbjNJcG5HjdoCPQGuwnocc=; b=mNrLHoEiyKreJSajWScTXXvXl5KLfNAmqgzLiReNfZojlaE4soY4Ge3zBxTXd+4bWQ 6CjehhRSuB4LY406zF3oLMPXOKqus+pjxApTniwMsvxOIwt1P5L3t+iR2Ybolj23qloO LZjH5nhkFiHq4fnzM/dSJoLdfghgp/7x87NTSsZAQ0ZZh87YClcCk0TDW2snnTyCxpUk wS7wSELV+/Gc2KHODkbnOyWlFP8nj5hTE0Wcez/Lz5w9kM+QBVaMI+UNGkVs58tIu1pw xo30G1HrbzcgFnUnf3d4YDeuoN8xe0654dRfe+HDCgeGdIQWdjC7L7th9cbnCl752lu3 mj2A== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfohZSc6jMVQ5GfKxht+OblA3O0+YuoHIrAU7VAKeC0cAdraQ9gpU 4BwkBtxVnj7uio8iZogdgy9pk+jdWlj9D1HQrXM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV62HSMOo/tYPxxaHvJCCqka/V3UL/ZE8t43ywBVr7cDxJq/Z8+unomy5O2XZ+8jQCgjdwxYOpMoZwBQ8jiLk+cI= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6846:: with SMTP id c6mr9352807oto.65.1539096191390; Tue, 09 Oct 2018 07:43:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.210.53 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:230288 Archived-At: On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 19:02, Paul Eggert wrote: > > On 10/5/18 1:43 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > the commonly accepted mechanism of > > pointing out potentially wrong constructs is by visual cues and > > warning messages > > If we decide that Elisp source code must be able to abuse confusable > characters, then of course we should allow such abuse and support it as > best we can, including selective highlighting and whatnot to try to warn > readers of the abuse. Such support won't work outside Emacs, but people > using non-Emacs programs to look at Elisp code will simply be out of luck= . The problem is that deciding which characters are confusable and hence require backslash escaping is based on a shifting mess of heuristics. So I don't think it's workable to signal a hard error for this. Both in terms of false positives which could mean possibly breaking code, and false negatives which means we would be giving a false sense of security. That's why I proposed adding highlighting and enhancing existing error messages instead. Of course adding warnings would also make sense. By the way, your EN SPACE example already gives a compile warning: Warning: Unused lexical variable =E2=80=98data=E2=80=82data=E2=80=99