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: gratuitous changes Date: 05 Feb 2003 01:32:37 +0100 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <5xk7gftvmi.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> References: <20030204155741.B75B.LEKTU@terra.es> <2110-Tue04Feb2003214642+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <20030204211350.DE42.LEKTU@terra.es> <200302042022.h14KMPN23253@rum.cs.yale.edu> <15936.9792.971817.964555@nick.uklinux.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1044401561 10314 80.91.224.249 (4 Feb 2003 23:32:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 23:32:41 +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 18gCYR-0002g3-00 for ; Wed, 05 Feb 2003 00:32:39 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18gCgj-0002Gq-00 for ; Wed, 05 Feb 2003 00:41:14 +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 18gCa3-0006om-02 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Tue, 04 Feb 2003 18:34:19 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18gCZj-0006gN-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Feb 2003 18:33:59 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18gCZY-0006Ya-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Feb 2003 18:33:51 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.filanet.dk ([195.215.206.179]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18gCZG-0006Hb-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Feb 2003 18:33:30 -0500 Original-Received: from kfs2.cua.dk.cua.dk (unknown [10.1.82.3]) by mail.filanet.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 844647C018; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 00:33:24 +0100 (CET) Original-To: "Edward O'Connor" In-Reply-To: Original-Lines: 28 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 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:11366 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:11366 "Edward O'Connor" writes: > My $0.02 regarding removing extraneous whitespace, ?\ , etc: > > It seems like the occurances of ?\ and ?\ (?\SPC and ?\TAB) > in source files is probably pretty minimal. In the particular > case of ?\ , we have a perfectly good and arguably more > readable substitute in ?\t, so why don't we adopt a good and > arguably more readable substitute for ?\ , say, ?\s? > AFAIK, there is no difference between "?\ " and "? ". I'd like to "see" the space too, but \s is a bad choice. Maybe ?\_ could identify this? There are many ways to express a "protected space": ? ; -- only works at end of line (+ ? ) 32 (aref " " 0) (string-to-char " ") In any case, ?\_ looks simpler. -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk