From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: drain Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: RE: completing-read Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 22:12:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1401426723730-323304.post@n5.nabble.com> References: <1401299088212-323117.post@n5.nabble.com> <87wqd573iq.fsf@yun.yagibdah.de> <34c219ed-5a1a-42f6-b449-67c37d87e5b5@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1401426751 14838 80.91.229.3 (30 May 2014 05:12:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 05:12:31 +0000 (UTC) To: Help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 30 07:12:25 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WqF7B-0002DL-0b for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 May 2014 07:12:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51461 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WqF7A-0006t2-BG for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 30 May 2014 01:12:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59132) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WqF6w-0006sk-7T for Help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 30 May 2014 01:12:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WqF6r-0004Bb-1f for Help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 30 May 2014 01:12:10 -0400 Original-Received: from sam.nabble.com ([216.139.236.26]:42356) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WqF6q-0004BC-Sx for Help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 30 May 2014 01:12:04 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.168.236.26] (helo=sam.nabble.com) by sam.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1WqF6p-00021U-Nl for Help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 29 May 2014 22:12:03 -0700 In-Reply-To: <34c219ed-5a1a-42f6-b449-67c37d87e5b5@default> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 216.139.236.26 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:97966 Archived-At: Thanks for the help. . . . What are some cases in which using dotted pair notation would be better than using list notation? Or even more interesting: cases in which dotted pair notation would be /necessary/, and list notation would be impossible. Right now this is just a theoretical distinction to me. -- View this message in context: http://emacs.1067599.n5.nabble.com/completing-read-tp323117p323304.html Sent from the Emacs - Help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.