Juri Linkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I meant that these functions return only a literal newline, not `\n'.
> It might be confusing for readers of the reference manual when they
> will try out an example and see that its real output is different from
> the documented output in regard to newlines. They might start to
> search for an (AFAIK, nonexistent) option that toggles a literal newline
> or `\n' in return values, or even to fill a bug report.
to document a literal newline, we can
(a) include a literal newline between double quotes
(b) include a representation of such, between double quotes
(c) use a literal newline after @print{}, for output
(c) is not applicable for the three functions under discussion, so i
explain my rationale for choosing (b) or (a) in this case (similar
thinking might be useful generally, but i haven't thought about it
generally).
some observations: the strings in question share some characteristics:
are result values, short, end with a newline (and only one). `\n' as a
representation for literal newline is used not just for documentation
but also in emacs lisp strings (see node "Character Type"). this is a
programmer's manual for which the audience tends to be less easily
confused by seeing such a representation (although programmers can
become confused over anything, with enough concentration, it is often
true :-).
here are some cases where i think (a) would be more indicated than (b):
if there is more than one newline in the result, if the newline is not
at the end of the string.
thi
_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
