GNU bug report logs -
#17623
24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions'
Previous Next
Reported by: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 23:55:01 UTC
Severity: minor
Found in version 24.4.50
Done: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> In what sense is that a contradiction? (+ 1 10) is equivalent to (1+ 10),
> so we have N = 2 arguments in the original function and M = 1 = N - 1 in
> the new one.
No, N is described as the number of arguments the function accepts, not
as the number of arguments in someone's example. So
N = infinity, and M = N - 1 = infinity.
But Emacs' `1+' accepts one argument. 1 /= infinity. Different
functions.
It is a detail, but given that the preceding paragraph explains the
arity, and then we give an example that doesn't preserve arity, it's a
detail with the potential of confusion.
> > I'm a bit confused that you don't consider this a problem, and also that
> > you said there were no concrete suggestions.
> Why are you saying the suggestion is not being considered, whereas in
> reality it was considered (and rejected)?
I responded to "there were no suggestions" without reading everything of
the thread. I had the impression that the bug had been closed in a
rush. Maybe I was wrong. Stefan's explanation was confusing to me.
> I cannot disagree more. That one line doesn't make anything clear, it
> just shows the implementation.
It does for me. We can't have both?
> I object to deleting that. That text certainly helps me, so it cannot
> be useless, let alone harmful.
Why again was saying something like "note that unlike the built-in
function this version accepts any number of arguments" rejected?
Michael.
This bug report was last modified 3 years and 262 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.