GNU bug report logs - #28736
24.5; doc of `push'

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>

Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 02:58:01 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Tags: notabug, wontfix

Found in version 24.5

Done: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #26 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler <at> easy-emacs.de>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#28736: 24.5; doc of `push'
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 09:13:04 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 08.10.2017 21:40, Drew Adams wrote:
>>>>> why is it a problem to document this?
>>>> <Shrug> Because we don't want to guarantee the return
>>>> value won't change in the future?
>>> Are you sure?
>> No.
>>
>>> When was that decided?
>> I don't know if it was decided and when, I was just wondering
>> whether the lack of documentation is deliberate or an omission.
> Good.  Neither do I know that we don't want to guarantee
> that the return value won't change.  Nor do I know whether
> the lack of documentation was deliberate or not.  Nor do I
> know a reason why we wouldn't want to document the behavior,
> guarantee or no guarantee.
>
> Not having any reason to think there was a deliberate
> decision not to document this, and not knowing any good
> reason why it should not be documented, whether it was
> deliberate or (a priori more likely) an oversight, and
> knowing good reasons why it _should_ be documented (it
> is useful, and documenting that use is the practice in
> Lisp in general, and it fits what we do for things like
> `setq'), this should be a no-brainer, IMO.
>
> But if there is a good reason why it should not be
> documented, let's hear it, please.
>
>
>

+1
[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

This bug report was last modified 3 years and 241 days ago.

Previous Next


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