[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: raw-byte and char-table
From: |
MON KEY |
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
(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
--
/s_P\
- Re: raw-byte and char-table,
MON KEY <=
- Re: raw-byte and char-table, Kenichi Handa, 2010/08/25
- Re: raw-byte and char-table, MON KEY, 2010/08/26
- Re: raw-byte and char-table, Kenichi Handa, 2010/08/26
- Re: raw-byte and char-table, Miles Bader, 2010/08/26
- Re: raw-byte and char-table, MON KEY, 2010/08/26
- Re: raw-byte and char-table, Kenichi Handa, 2010/08/26