Subject: RE: bug#29598: 26.0; doc of `load-history'

From: Drew Adams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 08:27:54 -0800 (PST)

> > Shouldn't the doc say something about the order of the elements of the
> > alist?  It's a history, but neither the Elisp manual nor the doc string
> > mentions whether the beginning or the end of the list is the oldest
> > part of the history of loads.
> 
> Since it's an alist, and every element should be there only once, why
> does the order matter?

Because it's a history?  We already tell users, by using
that name, that it is chronological.  What we don't tell
them is which chronological order is used.

If someone is looking for something, it helps to know whether
the list order is old-to-new or new-to-old.  And if someone
locates something of interest in the list it helps to know
whether it is the stuff that comes before or after it that
was loaded when it got loaded.

Is there some reason not to mention the order?  We do, after
all, bother to call it `*-history'.