Re: Upcoming loss of usability of Emacs source files and Emacs.

[Paul Eggert]

Dmitry Gutov wrote:
> The font-lock solution has other benefits; it could implement a different scheme
> (or delegate the escaping step to substitute-command-keys, which seems a fine
> idea now, actually). But it currently uses the syntax that's been requested: 
> "\\~".

I thought that font-lock couldn't use the same escape syntax that 
substitute-command-keys does, and that this was why you suggested \~ rather than 
\= -- i.e., so that one could use \= to escape characters that 
substitute-command-keys would otherwise interpret, and use \~ to escape 
characters that font-lock would otherwise interpret.

It would be better to use the one escape syntax, as it's one less thing to 
explain to Emacs users.  But how would it work?  I don't see how.