From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kenichi Handa Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: raw-byte and char-table Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:34:48 +0900 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1282793727 4790 80.91.229.12 (26 Aug 2010 03:35:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 03:35:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eliz@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: MON KEY Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 26 05:35:24 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 1OoTF3-0003pT-SF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 05:35:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59424 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OoTEy-0003XF-3y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:35:00 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=60156 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OoTEs-0003WV-MK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:34:55 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OoTEr-0003Tt-0h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:34:54 -0400 Original-Received: from mx1.aist.go.jp ([150.29.246.133]:38890) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OoTEq-0003TT-G5; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 23:34:52 -0400 Original-Received: from rqsmtp2.aist.go.jp (rqsmtp2.aist.go.jp [150.29.254.123]) by mx1.aist.go.jp with ESMTP id o7Q3Ynp9005615; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:34:49 +0900 (JST) env-from (handa@m17n.org) Original-Received: from smtp4.aist.go.jp by rqsmtp2.aist.go.jp with ESMTP id o7Q3YnPs019806; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:34:49 +0900 (JST) env-from (handa@m17n.org) Original-Received: by smtp4.aist.go.jp with ESMTP id o7Q3Ymft013770; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:34:48 +0900 (JST) env-from (handa@m17n.org) Original-Received: from handa by etlken with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1OoTEm-0007xf-NP; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:34:48 +0900 In-Reply-To: (message from MON KEY on Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:58:22 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 9 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:129238 Archived-At: In article , MON KEY writes: > > Number like #x3FFFA0 is so criptic. The function name > > unibyte-char-to-multibyte is also not ideal, but I think > > it's better than #x3FFFA0. > Maybe I am misunderstanding, but I think the `#x' and `#o' syntax is > not cryptic at all in the context. I'm not arguing that the syntax is cryptic. What I want to say is that it is difficult for one who reads the code to understand what #x3FFFA0 means. > This signals an error: > (unibyte-char-to-multibyte > (unibyte-char-to-multibyte 160)) Yes, but is it a problem? > > We could provide a ?\NNN (or similar) notation for it. Similarly to > > what we do for those bytes in multibyte strings. > Howsabout just this one for all of them: > `#\' Do you mean that making #\240 to be read as #x3FFFA0? --- Kenichi Handa handa@m17n.org