From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Guidelines for the "symbol" syntax class Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 04:01:37 +0200 Message-ID: <5689D281.6060207@yandex.ru> References: <5688AD13.7050904@yandex.ru> <5689C0CA.7050005@yandex.ru> <5689C875.3010402@yandex.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1451872914 24225 80.91.229.3 (4 Jan 2016 02:01:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 02:01:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel To: John Yates Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 04 03:01:49 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aFuSy-0003f5-BY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Jan 2016 03:01:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43567 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aFuSx-0002DX-FR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 21:01:47 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37874) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aFuSu-0002DR-55 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 21:01:44 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aFuSq-0002Ei-TK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 21:01:44 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wm0-x231.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::231]:35444) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aFuSq-0002Ed-Mh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 21:01:40 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-wm0-x231.google.com with SMTP id f206so125069053wmf.0 for ; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 18:01:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:to:references:from:cc:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pkHFK4W2Yy1F76FuKLvpmTRVin58wNiz1iIWHEwl24Q=; b=Hl/n7TY4alGlcymZzsKHgJ8mwmiUcjXlxaNYhL9JBnz2nVotngC6z+EY3VYo51jXVE U9rdk3c1WCQAeYKwYzTNdusRLg6qm3C7UKtr2xDhcR0X16NBHWLhr2tHuVTe3Vf28A8A GW5wMoXAmJ4QfnBMdIZj03kMbXN/kGNtvTuiSwTwbQ2U65yuaNTe489M3c2FgXrG9LRE pp15W/UspzVdkrZpv2MrnlEuN4TsodamGlrAJ1H4s8og/21GdEI7eyH+k3GpO9y9Vq0y Ggm1Z5mhjiT3v32iwA7uVub2haTFrOtS+qjjD9ka0XQDQR9gRSJPmzMgaO34CoIeNvcg mM4Q== X-Received: by 10.194.87.170 with SMTP id az10mr92357672wjb.144.1451872900063; Sun, 03 Jan 2016 18:01:40 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([185.105.175.24]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id gj2sm83545022wjb.40.2016.01.03.18.01.38 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 03 Jan 2016 18:01:38 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/43.0 In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c09::231 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:197557 Archived-At: (Cc-ing emacs-devel) On 01/04/2016 03:46 AM, John Yates wrote: > I think that you are confusing issues of syntax and symbol resolution. I'd put the question this way: should the symbol correspond more to an atomic expression in a given language, or should it be the "name" of the identifier or atom denoted by the expression. To give a distant example: in Perl an PHP, you usually declare and use a variable by prefixing its name with $. Should $ be a symbol constituent? Both perl-mode and cperl-mode say no. > emacs' notion of symbol is purely syntactic. And that's the model I'm trying to work in. Again, I'm not trying to determine qualified names. > Starting with the the > current symbol collection framework you could build a purely syntactic > model of qualified names that should cover a very large set of > contemporary languages. I'm not sure how you think I could do that.