From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#6283: doc/lispref/searching.texi reference to octal code `0377' correct? Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 20:46:41 +0300 Message-ID: <83y6exs4xq.fsf@gnu.org> References: Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1275502771 15953 80.91.229.12 (2 Jun 2010 18:19:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 18:19:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 6283@debbugs.gnu.org To: MON KEY Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 02 20:19:28 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OJsXF-00010W-1f for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 20:19:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37167 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OJsTH-0003Qq-Iy for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 14:15:19 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37793 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OJsHx-0008F5-Ce for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 14:03:43 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OJsCI-00016l-MO for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:57:52 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:34348) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OJsCI-00016g-Ky for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:57:46 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OJs1t-0004j5-J7; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:47:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 17:47:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6283 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 6283-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6283.127550080518161 (code B ref 6283); Wed, 02 Jun 2010 17:47:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6283) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Jun 2010 17:46:45 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OJs1d-0004is-6v for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:46:45 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il ([80.179.55.169]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OJs1a-0004il-Iv for 6283@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:46:43 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L3E00H00E8IWV00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for 6283@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 20:46:37 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.62.239]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L3E00EUVEPOVV90@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 20:46:36 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:47:01 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:37489 Archived-At: > Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 12:06:34 -0400 > From: MON KEY > Cc: > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> Do you not see a contradiction of convention here? > > > > No, I see two different conventions used interchangeably. > > Do you recognize that one convention is explicity recognized by > Emacs/Emacs-elisp whereas the other is not? Yes, but I don't think that the manual should use only forms that can be evaluated or read by the Lisp reader. A manual is intended for human consumption (except where it shows examples of code), not for the Lisp reader. > Can you maybe see how the interchangeable use of these two different > conventions might be confusing to the audience for which the _elisp_ > manual was intended No, I don't see how using conventions widely accepted in the programming world should be confusing to Lisp programmers. I actually think that readers who are not too experienced in Emacs Lisp will find this text easier to understand if it uses conventions they are familiar with and used to. Anyway, I think it's time to end this discussion. It's quite clear we disagree on this issue, and no repetition of the same arguments will change that. Thanks for taking time to make your position clear.