GNU bug report logs - #12314
24.2.50; `add-to-history': use `setq' with `delete'

Previous Next

Full log

Message #100 received at 12314 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: 12314 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, cyd <at> gnu.org, drew.adams <at> oracle.com
Subject: Re: bug#12314: 24.2.50; `add-to-history': use `setq' with `delete'
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 07:37:20 +0300

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: drew.adams <at> oracle.com,  12314 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  cyd <at> gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2012 17:37:53 -0400
> 
> >> > I meant "why does it matter FOR THE USER that the modification was
> >> > destructive?"  Users don't care about optimizations, they only care
> >> > about performance.
> >> Because this optimization improves performance,
> > But this optimization was already done.  We don't tell users in the
> > manuals about each and every optimization we do to improve
> > performance, do we?
> 
> I don't understand the question: the user of delete/delq/nconc (the one
> reading their docstring or their texinfo doc) is the person
> reading/writing the code, and the optimization is the act of choosing
> delete over remove or delq over remq or nconc over append, which is
> exactly what the reader will want to know, I think.

See my other message: I think we are talking about 2 different
things.  My gripe was only about using the term "destructive
modification", which muddies the waters without gaining anything.

Previous Next

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