From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Latin-1 non breaking space not highlighted Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 17:37:10 +0300 (IDT) Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <200204091208.g39C8wC20529@aztec.santafe.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1018359565 17761 127.0.0.1 (9 Apr 2002 13:39:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 13:39:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ulrich@a0.complang.tuwien.ac.at, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16uvqH-0004cM-00 for ; Tue, 09 Apr 2002 15:39:25 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 16uw57-0003Sp-00 for ; Tue, 09 Apr 2002 15:54:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16uvq1-0000mc-00; Tue, 09 Apr 2002 09:39:09 -0400 Original-Received: from is.elta.co.il ([199.203.121.2]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16uvpJ-0000ky-00; Tue, 09 Apr 2002 09:38:25 -0400 Original-Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2]) by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA14762; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 17:37:10 +0300 (IDT) X-Sender: eliz@is Original-To: Richard Stallman In-Reply-To: <200204091208.g39C8wC20529@aztec.santafe.edu> Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:2491 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:2491 On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Richard Stallman wrote: > Currently, the definition of ``trailing whitespace'' includes only ASCII > whitespace characters. If we are to broaden this definition to non-ASCII > characters, I think we need a more general definition; just adding a > Latin-1 NBSP is not enough, IMHO. > > What is the syntax code of Latin-1 NBSP? Is it "whitespace"? Yes. > If it is, then why not make "trailing whitespace" include everything > with whitespace syntax? I didn't say we shouldn't do that. I'm just not sure this is the right thing to do. The current code simply doesn't consult the syntax tables, it has the ``whitespace'' characters hardwired into it. I cannot think of any particularly bad consequences of using the syntax tables, but I do see some issues that perhaps need to be considered: - the definition of whitespace will become mode-dependent; - Lisp programs that modify syntax tables could affect the trailing-whitespace feature; in particular, if some unexpected characters are defined to have whitespace syntax, users of trailing whitespace might become surprised by the results.