GNU bug report logs - #18253
24.4.50; doc string of `remq': correct it per the doc of `remove'

Previous Next

Full log

Message #34 received at 18253 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: tsugutomo.enami <at> jp.sony.com
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 18253 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, tsugutomo.enami <at> jp.sony.com,
 Christoph <cschol2112 <at> gmail.com>, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: RE: bug#18253: 24.4.50; doc string of `remq': correct it per the doc
 of `remove'
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:31:01 +0900

Hi,

> And most (all other?) Lisps have given it the same behavior as `remove',
> the only difference being to use `eq' instead of `equal'.  IOW, they
> systematically copy the sequence.

How about to avoid the use of word `copy' to describe both `remq' and
`remove'?

The point of remq/remove is non-destructive operation.  Whether it
returns a copy or not is not important.  This matches CL's `remove'
definition.  Actually, even the current `remove' implementation does not
return a copy when SEQ is not a list and there is nothing to remove.

If document explicitly says it returns a copy, reader might think
destructive operation can be performed on the result of both functions
while expecting original sequence unmodified.

enami.

Previous Next

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