[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ?\_ patch
From: |
Kim F. Storm |
Subject: |
Re: ?\_ patch |
Date: |
07 Feb 2003 15:52:02 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 |
Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 03:17:33PM +0100, Kim F. Storm wrote:
> > > > I really don't like the wierd double identity of ?\s, but I'm not sure
> > > > what alternative there is... Perhaps kim's idea (?\SPC), but with a less
> > > > ambiguous syntax, e.g., #\SPC or something.
> > >
> > > Ah! I completely forgot about `#' syntax. I think it's a
> > > good idea.
> >
> > I don't object to it, but I think it is unnecessary.
> >
> > Why add a whole new syntax just because we need ?\s which can be added
> > with no hazzle at all?
>
> Because #\SPC is actually pretty self-explanatory whereas ?\s isn't.
IMO, \s is just as self-explanatory as \t, \n, and \r.
>
> > If everyone else agrees this is a good idea, I'd suggest
> > using #?SPC, #?TAB, etc.
>
> I thought about that too, but I think #\SPC is better, because the `\' leaves
> a bit of whitespace between itself and the following character so the `SPC'
> stands out quite distinctly. `?' on the other isn't visually distinct, so
> #?SPC looks like a bit of a muddle.
>
Then what about simply using ?SPC, ?TAB, etc.
Today, if I eval (using C-j) the following in *scratch*, I get:
?S => 83
?SPC => 83
'(?SPC) => (83 PC)
but if I do
M-: ? S P C RET
I get
list: Trailing garbage following expression
so the current character syntax really is pretty obscure.
This could easily be changed to:
?S => 83
?SPC => 32
'(?SPC) => (32)
Can anyone think of existing code which will be broken by that
approach?
--
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk
- Re: ?\_ patch, (continued)
- Re: ?\_ patch, Miles Bader, 2003/02/06
- Re: ?\_ patch, Kim F. Storm, 2003/02/06
- Re: ?\_ patch, Juanma Barranquero, 2003/02/06
- Re: ?\_ patch, Luc Teirlinck, 2003/02/06
- Re: ?\_ patch, Miles Bader, 2003/02/06
- Re: ?\_ patch, Luc Teirlinck, 2003/02/06
- Re: ?\_ patch, Miles Bader, 2003/02/07
- Re: ?\_ patch, Kenichi Handa, 2003/02/07
- Re: ?\_ patch, Kim F. Storm, 2003/02/07
- Re: ?\_ patch, Miles Bader, 2003/02/07
- Re: ?\_ patch,
Kim F. Storm <=
- Re: ?\_ patch, Miles Bader, 2003/02/07
- Re: ?\_ patch, Dmitry Paduchikh, 2003/02/07
- Re: ?\_ patch, Kim F. Storm, 2003/02/07
- Re: ?\_ patch, John Paul Wallington, 2003/02/07
- Re: ?\_ patch, Kim F. Storm, 2003/02/07
- Re: ?\_ patch, John Paul Wallington, 2003/02/07
- Re: ?\_ patch, Miles Bader, 2003/02/07
- Re: ?\_ patch, Kim F. Storm, 2003/02/08
- Re: ?\_ patch, Miles Bader, 2003/02/09
- Re: ?\_ patch, Dmitry Paduchikh, 2003/02/07