From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.blogging Subject: RE: [Emacsweblogs] i18n Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 13:36:39 -0800 Message-ID: <1E7A60187FA64E798D0E4D103AB3574A@us.oracle.com> References: <1e7a74211001281954h1295a717id942a4405dc98b25@mail.gmail.com><87vdekbt60.fsf@everybody.org><1e7a74211001310729s6b0c506cv41cdea9b19274fba@mail.gmail.com><87fx5l8kat.fsf@everybody.org> <877hqxqqxz.fsf@xemacs.org><0B0F20F17689462CA495798B348F923D@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1265060283 6725 80.91.229.12 (1 Feb 2010 21:38:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 21:38:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "'Stephen J. Turnbull'" , emacs-devel@gnu.org, emacsweblogs@nongnu.org, "'Mark A. Hershberger'" , 'smc' To: "'Stefan Monnier'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 01 22:37:59 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nc3y2-0008Bk-CQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:37:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39515 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nc3y1-000400-NX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:37:57 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Nc3xw-0003zk-L8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:37:52 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51428 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nc3xv-0003zc-Ah for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:37:51 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Nc3xt-0005uR-EZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:37:51 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet12.oracle.com ([148.87.113.124]:30562) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Nc3xs-0005tV-Tk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:37:49 -0500 Original-Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com (rcsinet15.oracle.com [148.87.113.117]) by rcsinet12.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id o11LbYlM025512 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 1 Feb 2010 21:37:35 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt354.oracle.com (acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o11Dtk1r022222; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 21:37:32 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt004.oracle.com by acsmt354.oracle.com with ESMTP id 5008751265060200; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:36:40 -0800 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/130.35.178.194) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:36:40 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Acqjfd+IksKYMTXXRr2UdaSawj8b0gABuEpA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Source-IP: acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090201.4B67499E.00B0:SCFMA4539814,ss=1,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:120796 gmane.emacs.blogging:92 Archived-At: > >> It would be easy to change the reader such that _"foo" is > >> automatically read as (_ "foo"), just like we do for 'foo > >> -> (quote foo). > > > > Oh sure. And break existing code. > > I grepped for this sequence before sending the previous > email. So while theoretically there may be code out there > that would be affected, I don't think such code really exists > in practice. So should we specialize the Lisp reader to only support whatever is currently found in the existing Emacs source code, disallowing other legitimate Lisp syntax because it doesn't "really exist in practice"? > > Lisp (in general) has always read + eval'd a sexp such as (list > > 'foo_"bar") to produce the list (foo_ "bar"). You would > > have it return (foo (_ "bar"))? > > Actually, I'd probably have it return the same as now because this _ > appears in the "middle" (well, the end) of a symbol. This > said, I do not think there is this kind of code in the wild either, So you would change the Lisp reader to do something quite different from traditional Lisp readers, because you don't think the code they support is, in this case, likely to be encountered. That's your argument, apparently. You still haven't given a good reason for making such a change: > > But why? What's really gained by such a change? So far your argument seems to be: 1. It's easy to do, so let's do it. 2. There's no existing code that uses the currently supported syntax, so let's change it. By those same arguments alone, we could justify all kinds of nutty reader changes. How about a _good_ reason? What is to be gained by it?