[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: raw-byte and char-table

Subject: Re: raw-byte and char-table
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:58:22 -0400

> 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. These at least preserve identity:

 4194208, #o17777640, #x3fffa0

This signals an error:
  (unibyte-char-to-multibyte 160))

Also, there is the brevity factor:

(aref (syntax-table) #o17777640)

(aref (syntax-table) #x3fffa0)

(aref (syntax-table) 4194208)

(aref (syntax-table)
      (unibyte-char-to-multibyte 160))

> 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:



>        Stefan


reply via email to

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