RE: Emacs 26.1 release branch created

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> > > The form I favour is:
> > >     (let ((text-quoting-style 'grave))    (1)
> > >       (message "'%s" form))
> > >
> > > What Paul favours is something like
> > >     (message "%s" (format "'%s" form))    (2)
> >
> > Another difference between the two (of course): With #1
> > you can easily control the scope of the effect.
> >
> > For example, you can use a single such `let' for multiple
> > such messages.  And you can of course do this at any depth.
> > And you can override that locally at some depth using another
> > `let', binding a different value to `text-quoting-style'.
> 
> The above use case is a marginal one: there's rarely a reason to
> display symbols like 'foo in echo-area messages, let alone in a series
> of such messages.

I agree.  It was Paul's (or Alan's?) example, not mine.

> So let's not let marginal use cases drive this discussion,
> which is complex enough already.

Marginal use cases are not driving what I've said in this
discussion - at all.  That's why I emphasized the greater
flexibility of using `let' - easy to use for both marginal
and more significant use cases.

> FWIW, Paul's proposal sounds better to me, for the purposes
> of documenting the "fire escape".

Wunderbar - but you don't say _why_ it is better for that
documentation purpose.

But I'm guessing its because you look at this little bit of
doc as essentially a footnote - hiding `text-quoting-style'
in plain sight.  Now you see it; now you don't.

Calling reverting curly-quoting just a "fire escape"
suggests a desire not to have to offer `text-quoting-style'
at all - thinking of it reluctantly as a perhaps necessary
eyesore and bother, fit only for the back alley.

That's not the way I look at `text-quoting-style' or its
doc.  I don't see user control over pandemic curly-quotitis
as being just a fire escape - something to use only in case
of emergency.

The first question to decide is whether `text-quoting-style'
should be a user option.  I say yes (as does Paul himself,
apparently).  When the whole city is on fire little is more
important that finding a formerly inconspicuous fire escape
or fire hydrant - a welcome eyesore, if ever there was one.