GNU bug report logs - #6283
doc/lispref/searching.texi reference to octal code `0377' correct?

Previous Next

Full log

Message #11 received at 6283 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: MON KEY <monkey <at> sandpframing.com>
To: 6283 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#6283: doc/lispref/searching.texi reference to octal code 
	`0377' correct?
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 18:59:13 -0400

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> wrote:
>> `---- :FILE doc/lispref/searching.texi  (info "(elisp)Regexp Special")
>>
>> Shouldn't that be:
>>
>> "characters have codes above octal #o377"
>
> What's the difference between what's written and what you suggest?
>

(string-equal "0377"  "#o377")  => nil
(string-equal "0377"  "0377")   => t
(string-equal "#o377" "#o377")  => t

The latter forms read syntax being more in keeping with how the lisp
reader would interpret what the info docs are referring to as `octal
0377', and is at in keeping with what is presented in
(info "(elisp)Integer Basics"):

(eval #o377) => 255

What isn't at all clear in the infos in general is that the octal (or
FTM decimal, hex, etc. representations) for the literal raw-byte \255
is arrived at with something more like:

(insert (char-to-string #o17777655))

(insert (char-to-string #x3fffad))

(insert (char-to-string 4194221))

e.g. decimal 4194221 -> octal #o17777655 -> hex #x3fffad

Without knowing what do with that octal value simply referencing \255
as octal 0377 or hex X3FFFAD isn't all that informative of itself.

FWIW It took me a coupla years to figure out what how to frob those
values into a raw-byte and I still require to relearn it from the docs
whenever I need to manually revert some raw-bytes or improperly
encoded bit-rotted text using regexps.

-- 
/s_P\

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.