From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Change of Lisp syntax for "fancy" quotes in Emacs 27? Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:57:20 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <83y3bc2378.fsf@gnu.org> <73c02cbb-888f-478c-a231-923aa43c093e@default> <20181006091422.GA4855@ACM> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1538837786 26465 195.159.176.226 (6 Oct 2018 14:56:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:56:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: npostavs@users.sourceforge.net, Eli Zaretskii , Paul Eggert , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 06 16:56:21 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1g8o0D-0006mb-2i for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 06 Oct 2018 16:56:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39469 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g8o2J-0007i7-KY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 06 Oct 2018 10:58:31 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49336) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g8o1X-0007Yr-O2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Oct 2018 10:57:44 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g8o1V-0001Wd-Le for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Oct 2018 10:57:43 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com ([141.146.126.78]:58190) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g8o1O-0001OZ-4F; Sat, 06 Oct 2018 10:57:35 -0400 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w96Es7Me012459; Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:57:23 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2018-07-02; bh=bY3yYrh16jyDO93+El16sWwyS2oFTzKtiS5ceiWDfts=; b=cSg+BEwhcLU7aTarD2e6+zGDLLvMkxsSk5p0aeOx8xT/b7/c+fM5AkH5KLSgYFqHdihv udd0fteNbuphF9Ku4ktWsfGSPWbuKDCYGBQcr09QZt+K419tE1JuGHlsGttMvR0AVbiN KrAHkdpK3A0P3Oa/7PuFApMvIJlCIkxeCO9IYFVJCcLk/zyREfFRnthJ6OFKnOsVid/U SV0rNOjRGkjd3ga6xpc12n0hDazfow09BBOrDR+HoY1k3DQhTqWW+XJhfQkq8kmVMf8C eFA4uuNJCvQPUESWjkVla1pMKSkazi1TEpdw3bymXQR+XwZG8MqOSi0l9WaEstu9zz6V BQ== Original-Received: from userv0022.oracle.com (userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74]) by aserp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2mxn0ph2ay-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 06 Oct 2018 14:57:23 +0000 Original-Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by userv0022.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w96EvM3e007651 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:57:22 GMT Original-Received: from ubhmp0012.oracle.com (ubhmp0012.oracle.com [156.151.24.65]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w96EvLF9021290; Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:57:21 GMT In-Reply-To: <20181006091422.GA4855@ACM> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4735.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5900 definitions=9037 signatures=668706 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=671 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1810060151 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 141.146.126.78 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:230256 Archived-At: > > This is a judgment call, but we should _let Lisp judge_ > > about syntax errors, based on, well, its own syntax. If you > > use (let (foo =A0foo)...), where there is a no-break space > > between foo and foo, so be it. That's a single symbol, > > `foo foo'. >=20 > Do we even allow the syntax (let ((foo))...)? If we do, then why? > There's (let (foo)...) and (let ((foo nil))...) for binding a symbol to > nil. Yes, sorry. I wasn't paying attention to the parens in that example. My point was only that use of `foo foo' (with a no-break space between the two foo's) as a mistake/typo for an intended `foo foo' (with a normal space) should not be signaled by Lisp as an error. But the no-break space could be highlighted as sometimes helpful info. `foo foo' (with no-break space) is just a symbol, for Lisp - not a syntax error. E.g. (changing the example): (let (foo foo)...) binds symbol `foo foo' (with a no-break space) to nil. It doesn't bind symbol `foo' to the current value of symbol `foo'. So, e.g., if symbol `foo' happens to be unbound then even evaluation of that binding won't raise an error (e.g. unbound variable `foo').