From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Damien Elmes Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: ?\_ patch Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 02:13:49 +1100 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <86lm0sjf82.fsf@mobile.repose.cx> References: <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> <5xfzr0i1nx.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> <20030207140204.GA6530@gnu.org> <5xadh8hyxm.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1044630811 27167 80.91.224.249 (7 Feb 2003 15:13:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:13:31 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18hAC2-00073v-00 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 16:13:30 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18hALc-0005U8-00 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 16:23:25 +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 18hACa-0005s9-00 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 10:14:04 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18hACO-0005mb-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 10:13:52 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18hACN-0005ll-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 10:13:51 -0500 Original-Received: from dsl-202-45-99-62.act.netspace.net.au ([202.45.99.62] helo=plethora.repose.cx) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18hACI-0005i6-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 10:13:46 -0500 Original-Received: from mobile.repose.cx (respite.repose.cx [192.168.1.128]) by plethora.repose.cx (Postfix) with SMTP id D9B94AA2B8 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2003 02:16:59 +1100 (EST) Original-Received: by mobile.repose.cx (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 8 Feb 2003 02:13:49 +1100 Original-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <5xadh8hyxm.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk> (storm@cua.dk's message of "07 Feb 2003 16:51:01 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.3.50 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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:11466 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:11466 storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) writes: > The Lisp manual doesn't refer to C syntax to explain e.g. ?\t. > So to me, \s and \t are equally self-explanatory. I agree. I also think that the more verbose you make the "proper" way to go about it, the more likely people are going to be lazy and just use "? ". Why introduce a whole new #\ syntax when ?foo is currently widely used to represent characters? Regards, -- Damien Elmes