From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: RE: RFC: String interpolation
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 14:04:07 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <f40b7af7-63ab-40f9-910c-b7a1145023b1@default>
References: <<51825111-ace4-f750-4077-026a3b648d27@gmail.com>
	<8af2c43b-1a06-49d9-81fb-24247dd8e49a@default>>
	<<E1cF5SK-0000HO-EL@fencepost.gnu.org>>
NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1481234669 3657 195.159.176.226 (8 Dec 2016 22:04:29 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 22:04:29 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: clement.pit@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
To: rms@gnu.org, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 08 23:04:24 2016
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
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 <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1cF6ng-00005C-9i
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2016 23:04:24 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49251 helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1cF6nk-0004fB-9U
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2016 17:04:28 -0500
Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49353)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <drew.adams@oracle.com>) id 1cF6na-0004VA-7g
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2016 17:04:18 -0500
Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <drew.adams@oracle.com>) id 1cF6nW-0002ml-EJ
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2016 17:04:18 -0500
Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:37000)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <drew.adams@oracle.com>)
	id 1cF6nW-0002lc-5D; Thu, 08 Dec 2016 17:04:14 -0500
Original-Received: from userv0021.oracle.com (userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71])
	by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with
	ESMTP id uB8M490g019923
	(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK);
	Thu, 8 Dec 2016 22:04:10 GMT
Original-Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72])
	by userv0021.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uB8M49sL017582
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256
	verify=OK); Thu, 8 Dec 2016 22:04:09 GMT
Original-Received: from abhmp0003.oracle.com (abhmp0003.oracle.com [141.146.116.9])
	by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id uB8M48L0030436;
	Thu, 8 Dec 2016 22:04:09 GMT
In-Reply-To: <<E1cF5SK-0000HO-EL@fencepost.gnu.org>>
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1  (1003210) [OL
	12.0.6753.5000 (x86)]
X-Source-IP: userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71]
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic]
	[fuzzy]
X-Received-From: 141.146.126.69
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:210163
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/210163>

>   > If Emacs extends `format', I'd vote for it to follow Common Lisp.
>=20
> That could have many meanings.  I hope you don't mean switching from %
> to ~ to introduce special constructs.  That would be extremely painful
> and I am firmly against it.
>=20
> If what you mean is not an incompatible change in Emacs, then I have
> no opinion about it a priori.

1. I was speaking only generally, there.

2. If the same name (`format') is kept, then yes, it would need to
   be a compatible change.  If another name (e.g. `cl-format') were
   used then it can (and if prefix `cl-' is used then it should)
   use % etc.  It would be possible to either or both.

I find Common Lisp `format' to be good.  In general, the more Emacs
Lisp `format' were to move toward it, the better, I think.