[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Issue: SHARPSIGN-BACKSLASH-BITS]
This issue deals with characters in Common Lisp. There seems to be
general consensus for removing the "font" attribute from characters, and
some ambivalence about whether the "bits" attribute should remain in the
standard rather than in an optional extension. (As specified, they do
little harm, however.)
----- Begin Forwarded Messages -----
Return-Path: <@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU:KMP@YUKON.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Received: from SAIL.STANFORD.EDU by Xerox.COM ; 27 FEB 87 16:53:21 PST
Received: from SCRC-YUKON.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 27 Feb 87
16:51:39 PST
Received: from RIO-DE-JANEIRO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by
YUKON.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 171Date: Fri, 27
Feb 87 19:51 EST
From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: SHARPSIGN-BACKSLASH-BITS
To: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
cc: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
Message-ID: <870227195124.0.KMP@RIO-DE-JANEIRO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Issue: SHARPSIGN-BACKSLASH-BITS
References: #\ (p354)
Category: CLARIFICATION
Edit history: Revision 1 by KMP 02/27/87
Problem Description:
The description of names for characters that has bits gives examples
without
clearly specifying the meaning of the bit names.
Proposal (SHARPSIGN-BACKSLASH-BITS:SHORT-AND-LONG):
It should be clearly stated at the appropriate point (currently on
p354)
that the names "C" and "CONTROL" mean control, "M" and "META" mean
meta,
"S" and "SUPER" mean "SUPER", and "H" and "HYPER" mean hyper. It
should
further specified that these can be mixed and matched, as in
"C-META-X".
Rationale:
We give examples of both styles, so both styles should be
well-defined.
If these are not going to be well-defined, there's no point in our
giving
examples of them.
Current Practice:
Most implementations support both short and long names to back up the
bit
names that they allow.
Some implementations accept only the short name. Others only the long
name.
Adoption Cost:
The cost of this change is very small.
Benefits:
If an input syntax is going to reliably exist, we need to say so.
Conversion Cost:
User code is not likely to be adversely affected. Most users will
likely
perceive this as a bug fix.
Aesthetics:
This doesn't much affect aesthetics one way or the other.
Discussion:
KMP thinks this is a good idea.
----- Next Message -----
Return-Path: <@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU:Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Received: from SAIL.STANFORD.EDU by Xerox.COM ; 02 MAR 87 21:46:09 PST
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 2
Mar 87 21:43:46 PST
Received: from EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by
STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 82Date: Tue,
3 Mar 87 00:42 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: SHARPSIGN-BACKSLASH-BITS
To: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12282824063.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Message-ID: <870303004240.3.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1987 01:07 EST
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
I support this proposal.
So do I.
I think that we should seriously consider flushing both the bit and
the
font attribute characters as part of the language spec.
Of course if we did that, the SHARPSIGN-BACKSLASH-BITS proposal would be
superseded, so you can't consistently support both. That's okay, nobody
is asking you to be consistent.
Removing bits and fonts wouldn't bother Symbolics. We don't use fonts,
and we wouldn't mind calling the bits feature part of our extensions to
Common Lisp rather than part of standard Common Lisp. However, it would
be a pity if all the people who have meta keys didn't get together and
agree on how they will be handled. I assume Common Lisp would not be
changed in a way that made it impossible to continue to support the bits
facility, for example, MAKE-CHAR would not be changed to add an optional
second argument that wasn't the bits.
Scott, perhaps you should write a formal cleanup proposal for this. Or
is not time yet.
These would be
replaced by a character standard that would allow for both extended
character sets and for implementation-specific character attributes
--
maybe fonts and bits, maybe something else, but unportable in any
event.
Any such wholesale re-thinking of characters must be coordinated
with
the Kanji standard from Japan, so it may not happen soon. KMP's
proposal is a useful patch in the meantime.
I'm more concerned that adding a new thing (character sets) be done
thoughtfully than I am about removing an old thing (fonts).
----- Next Message -----
Return-Path: <@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU:FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Received: from SAIL.STANFORD.EDU by Xerox.COM ; 28 FEB 87 22:08:51 PST
Received: from C.CS.CMU.EDU by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 28 Feb 87
22:07:00 PST
Received: ID <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>; Sun 1 Mar 87 01:07:47-EST
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 87 01:07 EST
Message-ID: <FAHLMAN.12282824063.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: SHARPSIGN-BACKSLASH-BITS
In-reply-to: Msg of 27 Feb 1987 19:51-EST from Kent M Pitman <KMP at
STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
I support this proposal.
I think that we should seriously consider flushing both the bit and the
font attribute characters as part of the language spec. These would be
replaced by a character standard that would allow for both extended
character sets and for implementation-specific character attributes --
maybe fonts and bits, maybe something else, but unportable in any event.
Any such wholesale re-thinking of characters must be coordinated with
the Kanji standard from Japan, so it may not happen soon. KMP's
proposal is a useful patch in the meantime.
Spice Lisp currently accepts both short and long names, with the obvious
mapping, so we already comply with this proposal.
----- Next Message -----
Return-Path: <@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU:gls@Think.COM>
Received: from SAIL.STANFORD.EDU by Xerox.COM ; 03 MAR 87 10:06:35 PST
Received: from THINK.COM by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 3 Mar 87
10:02:33 PST
Received: from boethius by Think.COM via CHAOS; Tue, 3 Mar 87 12:56:59
EST
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 87 12:59 EST
From: Guy Steele <gls@Think.COM>
Subject: SHARPSIGN-BACKSLASH-BITS
To: KMP@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com, CL-Cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: gls@think.com
In-Reply-To: <870227195124.0.KMP@RIO-DE-JANEIRO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Message-Id: <870303125900.6.GLS@BOETHIUS.THINK.COM>
I support this proposal.
----- End Forwarded Messages -----