From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Luc Teirlinck Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: ?\_ patch Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:33:01 -0600 (CST) Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <200302061733.LAA24096@eel.dms.auburn.edu> References: <200302060044.SAA21429@eel.dms.auburn.edu> <200302060106.TAA21443@eel.dms.auburn.edu> <5xel6lu3lh.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk><5xadh9tyt3.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1044553299 20032 80.91.224.249 (6 Feb 2003 17:41:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:41:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: miles@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18gq19-00059B-00 for ; Thu, 06 Feb 2003 18:40:55 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18gqAJ-0001Hh-00 for ; Thu, 06 Feb 2003 18:50:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18gpv4-0002eD-04 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Thu, 06 Feb 2003 12:34:38 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18gptQ-0001gG-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Feb 2003 12:32:56 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18gpt1-0001Ca-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Feb 2003 12:32:33 -0500 Original-Received: from manatee.dms.auburn.edu ([131.204.53.104]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18gpst-00018p-00; Thu, 06 Feb 2003 12:32:23 -0500 Original-Received: from eel.dms.auburn.edu (eel.dms.auburn.edu [131.204.53.108]) by manatee.dms.auburn.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA05703; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:32:16 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (from teirllm@localhost) by eel.dms.auburn.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id LAA24096; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 11:33:01 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: eel.dms.auburn.edu: teirllm set sender to teirllm@dms.auburn.edu using -f Original-To: storm@cua.dk In-reply-to: <5xadh9tyt3.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> (storm@cua.dk) Original-cc: handa@m17n.org Original-cc: ted@oconnor.cx Original-cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:11423 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:11423 Richard and Handa seem to object against any change in Emacs for the purpose. I do not know whether or not that is due to the fact that they might believe the required change to be more substantial than it actually is (as can be seen from your patch). Of course, in addition to your patch some "secondary" changes to support the primary change would be necessary, as can be seen from Ted's original patch. However, such secondary (mostly documentation) changes are necessary anyway if we are going to alert people to the dangers of ?\ in terms of trailing whitespace removal and tabification, and propose alternatives. If you compare ?\s with ?\040 or ?\x20 (which I consider so closely related that I consider them as one solution), then: ?\s: Disadvantages: 1. Possible confusion with ?\s- 2. Requires change in Emacs. Advantages: 1. Intuitive and concise. 2. Required change in Emacs is limited. ?\040 (or ?\x20) Disadvantages: 1. Relies on ASCII ordering. 2. Not terribly intuitive. Advantage: No change in Emacs required. I believe that the third suggested solution, (string-to-car " "), presents some problems if one systematically would want to replace \? everywhere with it, as I pointed out before. The main objection against ?\s seems to be the change in Emacs. In as far as ?\040 (or ?\x20) are concerned, Handa does not seem to object against the reliance on ASCII and he knows that stuff a lot better than I do. So it all comes down to whether the gain in intuitiveness from \?s is worth the (small) change in Emacs. Of course, intuitiveness is a relative concept. Sincerely, Luc.