From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs 26.1 release branch created Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 12:34:59 +0300 Message-ID: <83shf597b0.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20170922193511.GC7229@ACM> <20170922220700.GD7229@ACM> <20170924143939.GC5725@ACM> <20170924194139.GA6793@ACM> <20170925190357.GA4651@ACM> <855b1231-2279-4fd7-a2d6-be65435bb8be@default> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1506677795 10435 195.159.176.226 (29 Sep 2017 09:36:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:36:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: acm@muc.de, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 29 11:36:27 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dxriY-0001cr-89 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 11:36:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34386 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dxric-000071-JN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 05:36:26 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33000) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dxrhk-00006p-Mh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 05:35:38 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dxrhk-0005f3-0c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 05:35:32 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:32819) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dxrhe-0005cp-VJ; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 05:35:26 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1093 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1dxrhT-0005M3-0J; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 05:35:16 -0400 In-reply-to: <855b1231-2279-4fd7-a2d6-be65435bb8be@default> (message from Drew Adams on Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:43:44 -0700 (PDT)) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:218887 Archived-At: > Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:43:44 -0700 (PDT) > From: Drew Adams > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Paul Eggert , > rms@gnu.org > > > The form I favour is: > > (let ((text-quoting-style 'grave)) (1) > > (message "'%s" form)) > > > > What Paul favours is something like > > (message "%s" (format "'%s" form)) (2) > > Another difference between the two (of course): With #1 > you can easily control the scope of the effect. > > For example, you can use a single such `let' for multiple > such messages. And you can of course do this at any depth. > And you can override that locally at some depth using another > `let', binding a different value to `text-quoting-style'. The above use case is a marginal one: there's rarely a reason to display symbols like 'foo in echo-area messages, let alone in a series of such messages. So let's not let marginal use cases drive this discussion, which is complex enough already. FWIW, Paul's proposal sounds better to me, for the purposes of documenting the "fire escape".