RE: Simple Tasks, new TODO category

[Drew Adams]

> > Well, I don't really want to argue about it. I'll just go on record as
> > saying that it is a (classic) mistake. We should at least 
> > provide an escape syntax for such a "special" character.
> 
> Of course: without escape syntax this won't fly. No one may assume that
> a specific character will never be used in a menu label. It still makes
> sense to use one (or two, depending on the way escape is implemented)
> character that is rarely used, to minimize annoyance.

If there is an escape syntax, I have no objection to using a printable 
character.

However, then something will need to be done to automatically escape that 
character in generated menu items (Imenu, buffer names, frame names, etc.).

And then how will you deal with code that automatically generates menu items 
that purposefully contain the keyboard-access character? How will the 
automatic-escaping code distinguish such occurrences of the character from 
occurrences that should be escaped?

Wouldn't it make more sense to use a non-printable character? Then, no 
generated menus would need to be massaged. 

I still haven't seen any reason given, beyond a supposed convenience, why 
non-printable characters shouldn't be used. What is inconvenient about using an 
octal code for a non-printable character? This is about Lisp code, not Emacs 
user interaction, isn't it?