From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: ?\_ patch Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 08:28:47 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <20030207132847.GA5105@gnu.org> References: <200302060106.TAA21443@eel.dms.auburn.edu> <200302061733.LAA24096@eel.dms.auburn.edu> <200302070253.UAA25703@eel.dms.auburn.edu> <200302070856.RAA00661@etlken.m17n.org> <5xk7gci39e.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1044624624 31813 80.91.224.249 (7 Feb 2003 13:30:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:30:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Kenichi Handa Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18h8a7-0008Gh-00 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 14:30:15 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18h8jf-0004PT-00 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 14:40:07 +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 18h8ZW-0000Io-01 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 08:29:38 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18h8Z6-0008V5-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 08:29:12 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18h8Yr-00082u-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 08:28:57 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18h8Yi-00081S-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 08:28:48 -0500 Original-Received: from miles by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 18h8Yh-0001OM-00; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 08:28:47 -0500 Original-To: "Kim F. Storm" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5xk7gci39e.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Blat: Foop Original-cc: teirllm@dms.auburn.edu 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:11458 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:11458 On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 03:17:33PM +0100, Kim F. Storm wrote: > > > I really don't like the wierd double identity of ?\s, but I'm not sure > > > what alternative there is... Perhaps kim's idea (?\SPC), but with a less > > > ambiguous syntax, e.g., #\SPC or something. > > > > Ah! I completely forgot about `#' syntax. I think it's a > > good idea. > > I don't object to it, but I think it is unnecessary. > > Why add a whole new syntax just because we need ?\s which can be added > with no hazzle at all? Because #\SPC is actually pretty self-explanatory whereas ?\s isn't. > If everyone else agrees this is a good idea, I'd suggest > using #?SPC, #?TAB, etc. I thought about that too, but I think #\SPC is better, because the `\' leaves a bit of whitespace between itself and the following character so the `SPC' stands out quite distinctly. `?' on the other isn't visually distinct, so #?SPC looks like a bit of a muddle. -Miles -- "1971 pickup truck; will trade for guns"