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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #64 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: Sun, 09 Sep 2012 05:51:14 +0300

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>,  12314 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  cyd <at> gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2012 19:11:50 -0400
> 
> >> > Why is it even necessary to talk about destructive modifications, if
> >> > we are to advise to assign the result anyway?
> >> Not sure I understand the question.  It is because these operations can be
> >> destructive of list structure that we advise that.
> > If you need to forget about the old value and assign the new one
> > returned by 'delete', why does it matter that the modification was
> > destructive?
> 
> Because it avoids memory allocation.  I.e. 99% of the uses of
> delete/delq/nconc are simple optimizations.

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.

Previous Next

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