From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Simple Tasks, new TODO category Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 01:09:05 +0100 Message-ID: <4797D721.2070009@gmail.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1201133418 13514 80.91.229.12 (24 Jan 2008 00:10:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:10:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Dan Nicolaescu , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Jason Rumney To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 24 01:10:36 2008 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 4.50) id 1JHpft-0008Pj-PU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 01:10:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHpfT-0002o1-Ok for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:10:07 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JHpfO-0002nM-Iz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:10:02 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JHpfL-0002mI-Uw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:10:02 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHpfL-0002mF-T1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:09:59 -0500 Original-Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.212]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JHpfI-0005at-7H; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:09:56 -0500 Original-Received: from c83-254-148-228.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.148.228]:63509 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JHpfG-0000Lr-3N; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 01:09:54 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080123-2, 2008-01-23), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.148.228 X-ACL-Warn: Too high rate of unknown addresses received from you X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1JHpfG-0000Lr-3N. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1JHpfG-0000Lr-3N 2e28f2436e404789547688c0bd6aabff X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) 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:87412 Archived-At: Drew Adams wrote: >> However the most easy way to do that is probably to add a character to >> the menu title string that could not possibly be part of the title. That >> way we could easily support w32 and, eh what window manager (is that >> what handles menus?) used _ to mark the accelerator? (Jan D, I think it >> was you that told about this when I asked before. GNOME?) >> >> Is there any drawback with such a simple design? Could we for example >> use char number 1? It should be very easy to implement for w32 and the >> other case above (where char 1 is just replaced with & and the other >> case where it is replaced with _). > > I haven't followed this. But I would be against having any (printable) > character in a menu-item name be interpreted specially and not just treated > as part of the name. It is not the case that some (printable) character > "could not possibly be part of the title" - whatever (printable) character > you choose, someone will want to use it in a menu item. `_' can certainly be > useful in a name. > > I don't know if that is what you meant, but if it is, please find some other > mechanism, or at least allow for escaping the instruction character. An > alternative might be to use an unprintable character. You misread my suggestion. I suggested using char number 1. Perhaps there is some better character?