From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: Invoking a function from a list of functions Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 18:31:12 +0200 Message-ID: <83wooxduzz.fsf@gnu.org> References: <67c4a534-d41c-4736-8839-c2dbbdf7f9c2@googlegroups.com> <2da7504a-8bbf-41b9-993e-a7bacd6c97b2@googlegroups.com> <20181116114002.3ba6bcc8dc1e699ba58e08b8@speakeasy.net> <20181119172358.802ce30c54f2fd20f8c300c4@speakeasy.net> <82781d42-afa5-4cb8-9cbd-b20eb73b26d0@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1543425579 8154 195.159.176.226 (28 Nov 2018 17:19:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 17:19:39 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 28 18:19:34 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@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 1gS3Ur-0001yN-RV for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 18:19:33 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49065 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gS3Wy-0000ER-7x for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 12:21:44 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59131) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gS3UZ-0006zl-27 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 12:19:16 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gS3UU-0005Mk-Ty for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 12:19:14 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:42411) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gS2jw-0007zH-CV for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 11:31:04 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2461 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1gS2ju-00054s-6T for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 11:31:04 -0500 In-reply-to: <82781d42-afa5-4cb8-9cbd-b20eb73b26d0@googlegroups.com> (message from Rusi on Wed, 28 Nov 2018 06:10:48 -0800 (PST)) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:118794 Archived-At: > Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 06:10:48 -0800 (PST) > From: Rusi > > ELISP> (setq flag "hi") > "hi" > ELISP> (setq flag "there") > "there" > ELISP> (list flag flag) > ("hi" "there") > > ELISP> (setq á "hi") > "hi" > ELISP> (setq á "there") > "there" > ELISP> (list á á) > > Python > > >>> flag = 1 > >>> flag = 2 > >>> (flag, flag) > (2, 2) > > >>> á = 1 > >>> á = 2 > >>> (á, á) > (2, 2) > > In my view python does it right(er) than elisp That's debatable: the Unicode Standard says to act according to canonical equivalence only in text, whereas the above are symbol names. We do display them the same (if the font supports that), but we aren't under any obligation to map them to the same symbols, IMO. > However when push comes to shove both python and elisp are equally bad > > >>> Α = "hi" > >>> A = "there" > >>> (Α,A) > ('hi', 'there') > > > ELISP> (setq Α "hi") > "hi" > ELISP> (setq A "there") > "there" > ELISP> (list Α A) > ("hi" "there") Why bad? Those characters are not canonically equivalent. If you want to go by compatibility equivalence, you will enter a slippery slope, where, for example, Ⅰ and 1 will yield the same symbol or even the same number. Is that what you (or we) really want? I'd be surprised.