From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rustom Mody Subject: Re: Escaping again! Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 20:14:29 +0530 Message-ID: References: <87ha478iyd.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb1f39e6cfa8704fa9f1667 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57296) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WqO3A-0007Tj-5W for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 30 May 2014 10:44:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WqO38-0000dQ-Ls for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 30 May 2014 10:44:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87ha478iyd.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Bastien Cc: emacs-orgmode --e89a8fb1f39e6cfa8704fa9f1667 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Bastien On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Bastien wrote: > Hi Rustom, > > Rustom Mody writes: > > > - \(+\):: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92 Int > > - \(-\):: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92Int > > - \(\leq\):: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92 Bool > > - \(=3D\):: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92 Bool > > 1. \(+\) :: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92 Int > 2. \(-\) :: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92Int > 3. \(\leq\) :: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92 Bool > 4. \(=3D\) :: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92 Bool > > would do -- but this is not entirely satisfactory. > > For now description lists accept both "-" and "+". I'm all for > allowing only "-" so that we could use > > + \(+\) :: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92 Int > + \(-\) :: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92Int > + \(\leq\) :: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92 Bool > + \(=3D\) :: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92 Bool > > in your example. > > What do you and others think? > > If you are asking me about a proposed change, I thank you for the consideration :-) Please dont take the following too seriously -- I am just spoilt by the fact that I am an old programmer. Here is a command I ran on the org sources and its output: $ grep -r '\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' . ./contrib/lisp/ox-groff.el: "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n" ".br\n" output))) ./lisp/ox-latex.el: "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n" " \\\\\\\\\n" output))) ./lisp/ox-latex.el: "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n" " \\\\\\\\\n" contents))) ./lisp/ox-odt.el: "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n" "" output t))) ./lisp/ox-man.el: (setq output (replace-regexp-in-string "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n" ".br\n" ./lisp/ox-html.el: "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n" ./lisp/ox-html.el: "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n" ./lisp/ox-texinfo.el: "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n" " @*\n" output))= ) ./lisp/ox-texinfo.el: "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n" " \\\\\\\\\n" contents))) ./lisp/org.el: (looking-at "\\\\\\\\\\($\\|[^\\\\]\\)"))) So sometimes we need that much ESCAPE-ing. I realise that the general support for escaping in org is much harder than in a programming language like lisp because there are so many different contexts and different entities to escape. However I would also like to humbly submit that if one doesn't have systematic general escaping, there will always be legitimate uses that will not be addressable. Anyways=E2=80=A6 if you are doing this just for me (!) very kind of you! For now I am getting along using '=EA=9E=89' (Unicode 0xA789). Regards, Rusi --=20 http://blog.languager.org --e89a8fb1f39e6cfa8704fa9f1667 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi B= astien

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Bastien &l= t;bzg@gnu.org> wrote:
Hi Rustom,

Rustom Mody <= rustompmody@gmail.com> writes:

> - \(+\):: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92 Int
> - \(-\):: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92Int
> - \(\leq\):: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92 Bool
> - \(=3D\):: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92 Bool

1. \(+\) :: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92 Int
2. \(-\) :: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92Int
3. \(\leq\) :: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92 Bool
4. \(=3D\) :: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92 Bool

would do -- but this is not entirely satisfactory.

For now description lists accept both "-" and "+". =C2= =A0I'm all for
allowing only "-" so that we could use

+ \(+\) :: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92 Int
+ \(-\) :: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92Int
+ \(\leq\) :: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92 Bool
+ \(=3D\) :: Int =E2=86=92 Int =E2=86=92 Bool

in your example.

What do you and others think?


If= you are asking me about a proposed change, I thank you for the considerati= on :-)

Please dont take the followi= ng too seriously -- I am just spoilt by the fact that I am an old programme= r.

Here is a command I ran on the org sou= rces and its output:

$ grep -r '\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' .
.= /contrib/lisp/ox-groff.el:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0 &quo= t;\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n" ".br\n" output)))


./lisp/ox-latex.el:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0 "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n" " \\\\\\\\\n" outpu= t)))
./lisp/ox-latex.el:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n" " \\\\\\\\\n= " contents)))
./lisp/ox-odt.el:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 &= quot;\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n" "<text:line-break/>" out= put t)))
./lisp/ox-man.el:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 (setq output (replace-regex= p-in-string "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n" ".br\n"
./lisp= /ox-html.el:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 "\\(\\\\\\\\\\= )?[ \t]*\n"
./lisp/ox-html.el:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0 "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n"
./lisp/ox-texinfo.el:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n" " @*\n" output)))
./li= sp/ox-texinfo.el:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0 "\\(\\\\\\\\\\)?[ \t]*\n" " \\\\\\\\\n" contents= )))
./lisp/org.el:=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 (looking-at "\\\\\\\\\\($\\|[^= \\\\]\\)")))

So sometimes we need that much ESCAPE-ing.

I realise that the general support for escaping in org is much = harder than in a programming language like lisp because there are so many d= ifferent contexts and different entities to escape.

However I would also like to humbly su= bmit that if one doesn't have systematic general escaping, there will a= lways be legitimate uses that will not be addressable.

Anyways=E2=80=A6 if you are doing this just for me (!) very kind of you!For now I am getting along using '=EA=9E=89' (Unicode 0xA789).
=
Regards,
Rusi

--
http://blog.languager.org

--e89a8fb1f39e6cfa8704fa9f1667--