On 21/12/2025 03:33, arthur miller wrote:
>> If we document that (EXP), not EXP should be a valid expression, we are >> good.
[...]
No to be a devils advoce, but I am not sure you do. If we look at:
[...]
‘%(EXP)’ Evaluate Elisp expression EXP and replace it with the result. The
I agree with Ihor that using "(EXP)" here should help to avoid ambiguity.
"%( user-full-name )" => your user name if it is defined () **are** part of the expression.
[...]
Function call would be %((EXP)) and variable %(EXP) to reflect that.
I see you point concerning "%<" vs "%(" discrepancy, but I find double parenthesis ugly. Would it help to add an example with "%(identity VAR)" as Eduardo suggests?
The only problem is to choose variable and function names that do not have counterparts to avoid ambiguity. Preferably examples should not look contrived and should illustrate some real use case.
