This is the mail archive of the
guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: multistring.el
- To: mstachow at alum dot mit dot edu
- Subject: Re: multistring.el
- From: Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj at mdj dot nada dot kth dot se>
- Date: 17 Jan 2000 20:51:51 +0100
- Cc: "Greg J. Badros" <gjb at cs dot washington dot edu>, guile at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- Cc: djurfeldt at nada dot kth dot se
- References: <E12A3CR-0006IS-00@mdj.nada.kth.se> <qrrhfgcczhb.fsf@clavicle.cs.washington.edu>
"Greg J. Badros" <gjb@cs.washington.edu> writes:
> I still like the other formatting style better... IIRC, Maciej's main
> argument for multi-string-literal-juxtaposition instead of \n\ was that
> the latter is hard to type. With suitable emacs code, the \n\ is not
> going to be typed.
>
> While I, too, believe that storing unformatted text is better in the
> long run, leaving the formatting to the display medium, it's easy enough
> for tools to replace \n with spaces and then proceed re-line-breaking as
> appropriate. In short, I think it's better to preserve line-breaks in
> the literal string.
OK, using C-ca instead of C-cd preserves the formatting newlines.
Maciej:
When converting the Guile source, should I use the style produced by
C-cd or C-ca? And, what about \n\?
(I'd like to do this conversion as soon as possible.)