Re: ?\_ patch

[storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm)]

Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:

> 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.

IMO, \s is just as self-explanatory as \t, \n, and \r.

> 
> > 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.
> 

Then what about simply using ?SPC, ?TAB, etc.

Today, if I eval (using C-j) the following in *scratch*, I get:

        ?S       => 83
        ?SPC     => 83
        '(?SPC)  => (83 PC)

but if I do
        M-: ? S P C RET
I get
        list: Trailing garbage following expression

so the current character syntax really is pretty obscure.

This could easily be changed to:

        ?S       => 83
        ?SPC     => 32
        '(?SPC)  => (32)

Can anyone think of existing code which will be broken by that
approach?

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk