From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Aidan Kehoe Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Unicode Lisp reader escapes Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 08:41:23 +0200 Message-ID: <17494.65299.531952.993037@parhasard.net> References: <17491.34779.959316.484740@parhasard.net> <17492.29148.246942.842300@parhasard.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1146552112 26100 80.91.229.2 (2 May 2006 06:41:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 06:41:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 02 08:41:48 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 1FaoZv-0001rO-E2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 08:41:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FaoZu-0003Rv-Tj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 02:41:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FaoZf-0003Q1-61 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 02:41:31 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FaoZd-0003Ln-81 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 02:41:30 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FaoZd-0003LT-1U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 02:41:29 -0400 Original-Received: from [66.111.49.30] (helo=icarus.asclepian.ie) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FaoZg-0002pH-2x; Tue, 02 May 2006 02:41:32 -0400 Original-Received: by icarus.asclepian.ie (Postfix, from userid 1003) id A0DDC8008D; Tue, 2 May 2006 07:41:23 +0100 (IST) Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.5 (beta25) "eggplant" (+CVS-20060325) XEmacs Lucid X-Echelon-distraction: DREC 1* hate chameleon man Yakima DERA 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:53765 Archived-At: Ar an ch=C3=A9ad l=C3=A1 de m=C3=AD Bealtaine, scr=C3=ADobh Richard Stal= lman:=20 > > I think it would be better to put an explicit terminator into > > the construct. Perhaps #. So you would write "\u123#As I walke= d" >=20 > There is already the possibility to use `\ ' as a terminator. >=20 > That is true. The worry is that people might forget and run the > unicode constant together with the following text. People might not > remember to use `\ ' when it is needed, if they usually don't need it. >=20 > But it is no great disaster to make such an error--it will be obvious > when you see the output. So perhaps there's no need to do anything > to avoid the problem. One problem with that is that people writing portable code have never had the option of assuming (equal "\ " ""). Now, of course, you may prefer th= at people not write portable code; but it=E2=80=99s still a problem, because= people will try. > One other question occurs to me. In the Unicode branch, doesn't \x do > this job? If so, \u would be redundant once we merge in that code. It > would have no lasting purpose. I addressed that in my first mail, and I quote:=20 =E2=80=9CWhy not wait until the Unicode branch is merged? Well, that won=E2= =80=99t solve the problem either; people naturally want their code to be as compatible as possible, so they will avoid the assumption that the integer-to-character mapping is Unicode compatible as long as there are editors in the wild fo= r which that is not true. If this is integrated a good bit before the Unico= de branch is (which is what I would like), it will mean people can use this syntax (which most modern programming languages have already, and which people use) and be sure it=E2=80=99s compatible years before what would o= therwise be the case.=E2=80=9D=20 --=20 Aidan Kehoe, http://www.parhasard.net/