RE: C-x C-e with prefix arg

[Drew Adams]

> > * Negative in this case is mnemonic for "less".  It hints at the
> > elision/abbreviation.
> 
> Fine, then use the symbol `-' (just a minus sign) as the prefix arg.

OK by me.  +1.

(I assume you mean keys `C--' and `M--', which lead to symbol `-' as the raw
prefix arg.)

> > IMHO, the proposal I made is better, but I really don't 
> > care.  I never use either `eval-last-sexp' or
> > `eval-print-last-sexp', personally.  I use
> > `pp-eval-last-sexp' instead (and my own version of it),
> > and I use *scratch* in Emacs-Lisp mode (so C-j is not
> > `eval-print-last-sexp').
> 
> I like your proposal, but I strive to find the most 
> appropriate prefix arg that could be shared between lists
> and numeric output of `C-x C-e', `M-:', and `C-j'. i.e. the
> same prefix arg to define whether to print the full
> list value or not, and whether to print full information about numbers
> (octal, hexadecimal).  This is required for bug#12985.

As I said, I really don't care whether or what changes are made.  Use your
judgment - I'm fine with whatever you decide.

---

FWIW, I also don't think, personally, that we ever should have (in Emacs 22)
cobbled a print-integer-value-in-different-radixes functionality onto the
eval-and-maybe-print functionality.

To be clear, I mean the following (mis)feature, which applies
`eval-expression-print-format' to the last evaluation value (i.e., the car of
`values'), in `eval-expression':

 "**** Typing C-x C-e twice prints the value of the integer result
  in additional formats (octal, hexadecimal, character) specified
  by the new function `eval-expression-print-format'.  The same
  function also defines the result format for `eval-expression' (M-:),
  `eval-print-last-sexp' (C-j) and some edebug evaluation functions."

    - from the NEWS, Emacs 22

Personally, I think that was a dumb - er - misguided user interface that never
should have been plopped on top of the longstanding eval-and-maybe-print
functionality.  Others are free, of course, to think it is handy and extremely
clever.

The surprise expressed by Kelly Dean in his report for bug #12985 supports my
view of the UI somewhat, I think.  The right fix is not just to document the
feature (finally, years after it was introduced) but to just rip it out.  (There
are other ways to print an integer value in various formats, and it is easy
enough to have a separate command that does just that.)  But I doubt the feature
will be removed in consequence.