[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

Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]