From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Problems with xml-parse-string Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 15:56:05 +0200 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87fwwyvsei.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <87vd5x7ty2.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87vd5wo48a.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <8739t03q2g.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87k4mb2mfu.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87pqw3nm4y.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87iq1v0yi2.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87bp7nvt9j.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <8739syls92.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <8339syrlto.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1285423016 13901 80.91.229.12 (25 Sep 2010 13:56:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:56:56 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 25 15:56:55 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1OzVFH-0005t7-4j for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 15:56:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52266 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OzVFG-0004i0-6k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 09:56:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=53367 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OzVEk-0004Po-O4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 09:56:27 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OzVEd-0000nK-Qo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 09:56:22 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:52026) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OzVEd-0000n4-F9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 09:56:15 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OzVEc-0005cI-6m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 15:56:14 +0200 Original-Received: from p508ebf48.dip.t-dialin.net ([80.142.191.72]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 15:56:14 +0200 Original-Received: from dak by p508ebf48.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2010 15:56:14 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 26 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p508ebf48.dip.t-dialin.net X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:TNyk7UqULHtF/ndpp1mH45Z3H38= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:130844 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen >> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 15:11:40 +0200 >> >> Chong Yidong writes: >> >> > You are overselling your case. >> >> I give up. > > That's a pity. > > Chong, I'd suggest trusting Lars's instincts and experience a bit > more. OTOH, if you indeed want to see valid technical arguments for > his suggestion, you should request the same from the opposite views. > We should either judge intuition against intuition or specific > arguments vs specific arguments. I saw no practical arguments to back > up the other view, only academic ones. That's unfair, IMO. The basic argument was that existing code might be based on that form. That is not entirely academical. However, that existing code is not likely to run unmodified in Emacs Lisp, anyway. -- David Kastrup