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

From: Stefan Kangas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:31:44 -0700

Drew Adams <[email-masked]> writes:

>> > 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'.

I agree that this doesn't sound useful to document the order, in
general.  It's as likely to confuse as to help, especially if there is
we can't even think of a concrete use case for this.

Also, if we document it, we sort of make a promise to our users that it
won't change.  And there doesn't seem to exist any good reason to do
that.

So I think this should better be closed as wontfix.