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 09:02:04 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <20030207140204.GA6530@gnu.org> References: <200302061733.LAA24096@eel.dms.auburn.edu> <200302070253.UAA25703@eel.dms.auburn.edu> <200302070856.RAA00661@etlken.m17n.org> <5xk7gci39e.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <20030207132847.GA5105@gnu.org> <5xfzr0i1nx.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 1044626545 7250 80.91.224.249 (7 Feb 2003 14:02:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 14:02:25 +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 18h95C-0001sW-00 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 15:02:22 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18h9El-0004iZ-00 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 15:12:15 +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 18h972-0002Ge-07 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 09:04:16 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18h96h-0002Fj-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 09:03:55 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18h95U-0001hB-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 09:02:41 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18h94v-0001Wh-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 09:02:05 -0500 Original-Received: from miles by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 18h94u-0001tx-00; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 09:02:04 -0500 Original-To: "Kim F. Storm" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5xfzr0i1nx.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:11461 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:11461 On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 03:52:02PM +0100, Kim F. Storm wrote: > > Because #\SPC is actually pretty self-explanatory whereas ?\s isn't. > > IMO, \s is just as self-explanatory as \t, \n, and \r. The latter are `self-explanatory' only because they're used in C, and so are very familar to programmers. \s is not. > > 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. > > Then what about simply using ?SPC, ?TAB, etc. No, you're missing the point. My object to `?' is that the `?' is not visually distinct from the `S' -- they tend to `run into' each other. `\', on the other hand has a bunch of whitespace on the right side of it's glyph, and so is much more visually distinct from the following character. So getting rid of the `#' doesn't help at all. Morever, `#' is _good_ becaues it's the general lisp syntax for special syntax, so a lisp programmer will be much more likely to realize what's going on (if he's unfamiliar with this particular bit of syntax) if he sees #\SPC than if he sees ?SPC. > Can anyone think of existing code which will be broken by that > approach? I don't know, but I think it doesn't matter; we should just use a `#' escape. -Miles -- I'd rather be consing.