From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: ?\_ patch Date: 07 Feb 2003 15:52:02 +0100 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <5xfzr0i1nx.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> References: <200302060106.TAA21443@eel.dms.auburn.edu> <5xel6lu3lh.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <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> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1044625893 4526 80.91.224.249 (7 Feb 2003 13:51:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:51:33 +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 18h8ud-0001Af-00 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 14:51:27 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18h94B-0004bd-00 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 15:01:20 +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 18h8wL-0001Sm-03 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 08:53:13 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18h8w2-0001SV-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 08:52:54 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18h8w1-0001QH-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 08:52:54 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.filanet.dk ([195.215.206.179]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18h8vz-0001O6-00; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 08:52:51 -0500 Original-Received: from kfs2.cua.dk.cua.dk (kfs2.local.filanet.dk [192.168.1.182]) by mail.filanet.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 593217C012; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 14:52:50 +0100 (CET) Original-To: Miles Bader In-Reply-To: <20030207132847.GA5105@gnu.org> Original-Lines: 55 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 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:11459 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:11459 Miles Bader 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 http://www.cua.dk