RE: [External] : Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: Denote-Refs

[Drew Adams]

> > Yes, () would do as well - in fact better, since it
> > doesn't suggest any possibility that '() represents
> > something different from ().
> >
> > You don't quote nil or t, do you?  Or 42 or "foo" or
> > :bar.  Why quote () then?
> 
> In this case it doesn't matter, because () is self-evaluating, but (foo)
> isn't, so to me it seems more consistent to treat () as a list where I
> want to make it explicit that I am inhibiting evaluation.

Why do you want to make it explicit that you're
inhibiting evaluation?

As you say, in the case of () "it doesn't matter".
But that's the only case we're (I'm) talking about.

Apparently it does matter to you.  It matters to
make it clear that you're inhibiting evaluation.
Why?  What are you trying to say to a (human)
reader by doing that?

Not a rhetorical question; I really wonder what
your thinking is about this.  You're not the first
to do this on purpose, but I've never understood
why someone would (in Elisp).

It's not a big deal, admittedly.  But to me doing
that could suggest to a human reader that there's
some difference between evaluating '() and ().

To me, including in terms of communicating with a
human, this case is no different from t/nil/42/:foo.
Why "inhibit evaluation" of something that evaluates
to itself, and why draw attention to the fact that
you're doing that?  What's the human message there?

I mean, if the point of using () instead of nil
is to pass a certain connation to a human reader,
then we're (both) trying to give some importance
to that human message - saying a bit more than
just that the value is nil.  In that context (of
admittedly minor importance), avoiding suggesting
something untrue is relevant.