[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH] Interpret #r"..." as a raw string

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Interpret #r"..." as a raw string
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2021 12:24:17 +0200

> From: Daniel Brooks <db48x@db48x.net>
> Cc: rms@gnu.org,  matt@rfc20.org,  conao3@gmail.com,
>   monnier@iro.umontreal.ca,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2021 01:51:02 -0800
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> > Yes, see above (and in general, see the "Mutability" node in the ELisp
> > manual).
> > I'm still not sure I understand how to correct that.  If using "string
> > constant" is what is needed, then it's easy to switch to that
> > terminology throughout.  But I'm not yet sure this is the way.
> I don't think that "constant" is the right word to use. After all, the
> string that you get from a string literal can be modified just like a
> string from any other source.

That's a separate issue, and that horse has been beaten to death
already, with the current ELisp manual's text that talks of
"immutable" objects being the best result we could come up with that
leaves everybody with at least a partial satisfaction.  Please let's
not start that discussion again.

Let's agree that the word "constant" in the context of this discussion
is a purely syntactic term, it has nothing to do with the object's

reply via email to

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