From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Emanuel Berg Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Upcoming loss of usability of Emacs source files and Emacs. Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 00:43:16 +0200 Message-ID: <87eglbff5n.fsf@debian.uxu> References: <20150615142237.GA3517@acm.fritz.box> <87y4jkhqh5.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <557F3C22.4060909@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1434494265 24023 80.91.229.3 (16 Jun 2015 22:37:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 22:37:45 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 17 00:37:36 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Z4zU6-0007xw-D7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 00:37:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43105 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z4zU5-0005NS-Nj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:37:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41030) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z4zU2-0005NN-IZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:37:31 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z4zTz-0006pt-La for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:37:30 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:41949) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z4zTz-0006pj-Dz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:37:27 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Z4zTv-0007mV-LH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 00:37:23 +0200 Original-Received: from nl106-137-66.student.uu.se ([130.243.137.66]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 00:37:23 +0200 Original-Received: from embe8573 by nl106-137-66.student.uu.se with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 00:37:23 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 50 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: nl106-137-66.student.uu.se Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:08BSK4f5K4jYGQklB6/nj3q32w4= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:187225 Archived-At: Richard Stallman writes: >> Years ago we started putting non-ASCII characters >> into Lisp strings and comments, and this has >> worked well. > > That's a different issue. It is good to _permit_ > putting non-ASCII characters in strings and > comments, as we do; but Lisp code (including its > normal conventions) shouldn't require use of > such characters. I have been in a couple of discussions over this in various places so I'm happy most (?) people think like me at least here. I agree everything (like this) should be "permitted", but I don't see that big a difference between Lisp code, strings, comments, docstrings, and so on. If it is unpractical in one place, just because it isn't as critical perhaps in some other place, it is still as unpractical. With computers, ASCII is the most practical thing, and Unicode should be disencouraged. The Russians, Chinese, even the noble Spaniards at this point have absolutely no problem communicating computers in English, and for this, ASCII is the most practical way. The only situation where Unicode (or "whatever" above ASCII) should be used is when we have a person *using* the computer, but the activity itself has absolutely nothing to do with computers. Of course all the people that have different alphabets or a couple of extra chars here and there should use exactly that to communicate, write, read... But when it is computers, it is English, and it is ASCII, and everyone will benefit from it, and making it more advanced (supposedly) will not make for more advanced computer users. So it is tough love, a bit sad perhaps, but it is the truth what I can see. To encourage computer-computer usage in other languages seems to be tolerant and open-minded but it boils down to doing a disfavor. -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573