Re: ChangeLog fontifications

[Miles Bader <miles@lsi.nec.co.jp>]

Karl Eichwalder <ke@gnu.franken.de> writes:
> > [The alternative format you suggest, `(a)(b)(c)' does not provide any real
> > advantage for the reader -- embedded ") (" pairs are in fact _harder_ to
> > parse for a human than commas because they're busier, and less familiar.]
> 
> `(a)(b)\n(c)' is better than `(a, b)\n(c)' because the second flavor is
> highly misleading: grouping is artificial.

What can I say?  You're wrong.  I've used both variants for many years,
and the `(a, b)\n(c)' style is quite a bit easier to read.  It's
marginally harder to _write_, if you don't have automatic tools to do
so, but of course emacs users do have such tools.

This isn't some sort of `make the most minimal representation' game
(aka the scheme game :-), it's a practical exercise in choosing a format
that's both easy for humans to read/write and for tools to read/write.

Doing so involves compromises, but the current emacs solution is a good
and practical one.

> Please, switch to `(a, b,\nc)'.

Ain't my decision.

-Miles
-- 
Suburbia: where they tear out the trees and then name streets after them.