From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: MON KEY Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#6283: doc/lispref/searching.texi reference to octal code `0377' correct? Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 12:06:34 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1275496253 20175 80.91.229.12 (2 Jun 2010 16:30:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 16:30:53 +0000 (UTC) To: 6283@debbugs.gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 02 18:30:52 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 1OJqq8-0004s8-Jp for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 18:30:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41327 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OJqq8-0003jG-1m for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 12:30:48 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=38175 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OJqnU-0001k6-1d for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 12:28:09 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OJqnM-0000Kg-Ey for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 12:28:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:43331) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OJqnM-0000Kb-CD for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 12:27:56 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OJqT7-0003zh-TT; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 12:07:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org In-Reply-To: Resent-From: MON KEY 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 16:07:01 +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=B6283.127549480215347 (code B ref 6283); Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:07:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6283) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Jun 2010 16:06:42 +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 1OJqSn-0003zU-Rs for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 12:06:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com ([74.125.83.44]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OJqSm-0003zO-6m for 6283@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 12:06:40 -0400 Original-Received: by gwj19 with SMTP id 19so4506561gwj.3 for <6283@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 09:06:35 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.150.56.14 with SMTP id e14mr7766205yba.339.1275494794978; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 09:06:34 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.151.143.21 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 09:06:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Sender-Auth: KFUrhfwDmSAs8f8Q-1lQdbosxxY X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 12:07:01 -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:37487 Archived-At: 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? Do you recognize that each of these can be readily evaluated from within info by the Emacs lisp reader and produce an equivalent decimal value which is in keeping with the context/scope of the presented subject matter: #xff => 255 (identity #xff) => 255 #o377 => 255 (identity #o377) => 255 While the following evaluates to decimal 377 and does not: 0377 => 377 (identity 0377) => 377 (identity "octal 0377") => "octal 0377" Do you see that these two different return values may not be seen as equivalent by the user? Do you see that these two different return values may not be seen as interchangeable by the user? In either case, do you recognize that while these two separate return values may be mutually inclusive conventions understood by the initiated, the user may not have been suitably intitiated to have been made aware of these respective conventions and the mechanics of their interchangeability? 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 (presumably those interested in the conventions of the Emacs' _elisp_ API where such set of users may not necessarily represent/reflect the general programming community at large)? -- /s_P\