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: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 14:20:51 -0600 (CST) Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <200302072020.OAA27573@eel.dms.auburn.edu> References: <5xadh9tyt3.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <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> <86lm0sjf82.fsf@mobile.repose.cx> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1044649209 24637 80.91.224.249 (7 Feb 2003 20:20:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 20:20:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@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 18hEye-0006OI-00 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 21:20:00 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18hF8L-00005I-00 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 21:30:01 +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 18hF06-0005e4-05 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 15:21:30 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18hEzk-0005WB-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 15:21:08 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18hEzZ-0005Ls-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 15:20:58 -0500 Original-Received: from manatee.dms.auburn.edu ([131.204.53.104]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18hEyq-000513-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 15:20:12 -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 OAA10626; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 14:20:05 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (from teirllm@localhost) by eel.dms.auburn.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA27573; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 14:20:51 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: eel.dms.auburn.edu: teirllm set sender to teirllm@dms.auburn.edu using -f Original-To: emacs-devel@repose.cx In-reply-to: <86lm0sjf82.fsf@mobile.repose.cx> (message from Damien Elmes on Sat, 08 Feb 2003 02:13:49 +1100) 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:11488 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:11488 Damien Elmes wrote: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) writes: > The Lisp manual doesn't refer to C syntax to explain e.g. ?\t. > So to me, \s and \t are equally self-explanatory. I agree. I also think that the more verbose you make the "proper" way to go about it, the more likely people are going to be lazy and just use "? ". Why introduce a whole new #\ syntax when ?foo is currently widely used to represent characters? I agree with Damien and Kim on this. I believe that the few times that one actually needs ?\ are not sufficient to introduce an entirely new style of character syntax into emacs. This seems like the proverbial sledgehammer to crush an almond. I do not believe that we should try to emulate Common Lisp in this particular respect. I like Common Lisp, but its treatment of characters is quite simply not its strongest point. Whenever I have to play around with characters, I would much rather use Elisp. I prefer to go for Kim's latest ?\s version (where \s denotes a space even in "\s-a", since the super modifier is invalid inside strings anyway). Short of that, I would rather stay with ?\040 or ?\x20 than to introduce entirely new-style character syntax. Sincerely, Luc.