From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Oliver Scholz Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Unicode Lisp reader escapes Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 00:16:56 +0200 Message-ID: References: <17491.34779.959316.484740@parhasard.net> <17495.932.70900.796282@parhasard.net> <17495.16060.386251.695636@parhasard.net> <17495.49221.686950.640212@parhasard.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1146608352 4620 80.91.229.2 (2 May 2006 22:19:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 22:19:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: kehoea@parhasard.net Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 03 00:19:08 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fb3Cw-0005Jy-Bh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 03 May 2006 00:19:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fb3Cv-0004Lm-QO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 18:19:01 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Fb3Ci-0004LV-K5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 18:18:48 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Fb3Cg-0004LH-Lh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 18:18:47 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fb3Cg-0004LE-Ey for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 18:18:46 -0400 Original-Received: from [80.91.229.2] (helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1Fb3Cv-0006Cz-K7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 18:19:01 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Fb3C6-00058R-EC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 May 2006 00:18:11 +0200 Original-Received: from dslb-084-058-150-132.pools.arcor-ip.net ([84.58.150.132]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 03 May 2006 00:18:10 +0200 Original-Received: from alkibiades by dslb-084-058-150-132.pools.arcor-ip.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 03 May 2006 00:18:10 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 38 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: dslb-084-058-150-132.pools.arcor-ip.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:53823 Archived-At: Aidan Kehoe writes: [...] > It seems to me that the only objections there are Richard’s, on the grounds > of ugliness, and Oliver’s, on the unexplained grounds of what I imagine is > his individual philosophy. Though unexplained, not based on individual philosophy but based on principles which I assume to be shared by most readers here (and which therefore don't need explanation unless somebody explicitely asks for one). The principle is that the Lisp API should be as consistent and regular as possible in order to minimise possible sources of surprise for the user. \x and \u are so similar in what they do, that there should be very strong reasons for a difference in their syntax. As for \u and \U with fixed numbers of digits: it might be standard in other languages, but for Lisp it is entirely alien. My comment was not an objection. On the contrary I am a believer here. I think having a syntax for UCS characters in the next release would be a very important addition. (That's why I raised my voice in the first place.) You mentioned the reasons already so there's no need to repeat them here. The way *I* understand the discussion, the only real objection still standing in the room is Richard's concern that \u would become obsolete as soon as Emacs switches to an internal UCS encoding. I still disagree, but I see his point. The question is whether the portability provided by \u is considered to be more important than the (conceived) redundance in the future. As for implementing decode-char in C: that should be really trivial. Oliver -- 13 Floréal an 214 de la Révolution Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité!