From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Jul 11 09:52:03 2018 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Jul 2018 13:52:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54836 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fdFXG-0008EW-RB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:52:03 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:37483) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fdFXE-0008E0-Sy for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:52:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fdFX8-0000q1-TM for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:51:55 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:41206) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fdFX8-0000pu-P9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:51:54 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56675) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fdFX7-00021a-Hq for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:51:54 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fdFX4-0000oV-7G for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:51:53 -0400 Received: from aserp2130.oracle.com ([141.146.126.79]:36974) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fdFX3-0000SS-TH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:51:50 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w6BDmQNn118264 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:50:47 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : subject : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2018-07-02; bh=e6/JxobyZI8yMWsYqGlM2e0J3edfuwWQjcW8p7nR+XQ=; b=MAP6ldMSZIJRwSNDWysoga+7JikmQuCGchX/Z+YQ7SjnwFzYT1KGTwZxs9y1ZC1vOQ39 iOgcOIYj2IvcABPdEUejbZ7LRf/6OygnMLV+8TpLjSAtHGJjuFz6vuvuPu/iLuCOzdmk QYFXw6vVbTjjGKlIgXOl6Vpbv8D1VErZ372rXWs5juCjhnheqb3bbus3+0Od9brcupOX bB1Y3PovYunQZ0ESoLKbzuISPpKiqiCl372gt+sen3a7ra7lGg+Qa12p5wMx2Yrc73Pt +G665YIMqNDl+OGi2JlFszZ5wkzU1iSDu1aZ6av9Qdxz9lrgVI551Ix54lRQL+lb00n2 4Q== Received: from aserv0021.oracle.com (aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]) by aserp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2k2p75x8sn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:50:47 +0000 Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by aserv0021.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w6BDok1r007857 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:50:47 GMT Received: from abhmp0018.oracle.com (abhmp0018.oracle.com [141.146.116.24]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w6BDokQJ017272 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:50:46 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 06:50:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Drew Adams To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 26; Doc of `seqp` versus `sequencep` X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4717.0 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5900 definitions=8950 signatures=668706 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=1 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=701 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1806210000 definitions=main-1807110149 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) Neither the doc strings nor the descriptions in (elisp) `Sequence Functions' make clear what the difference is between these predicates. (It's not even clear why `seq' was added. What's that about?) And the name `seqp' seems like a bad choice. the predicate names themselves should at least give some hint of the difference. The doc for `seqp' should not just punt and tell users to go look in `seq.el' to figure out what it means: "or any additional type of sequence defined via 'seq.el' generic functions." And in (elisp) `Sequence Functions' the entries for these two predicates should be right next to each other. In GNU Emacs 26.1 (build 1, x86_64-w64-mingw32) of 2018-05-30 Repository revision: 07f8f9bc5a51f5aa94eb099f3e15fbe0c20ea1ea Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.1.7601 Configured using: `configure --without-dbus --host=3Dx86_64-w64-mingw32 --without-compress-install 'CFLAGS=3D-O2 -static -g3'' From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jul 14 04:18:56 2018 Received: (at 32125) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Jul 2018 08:18:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59485 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1feFlY-00060l-97 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 14 Jul 2018 04:18:56 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:33984) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1feFlX-00060Y-1b for 32125@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 14 Jul 2018 04:18:55 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1feFlO-0004HV-Q2 for 32125@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 14 Jul 2018 04:18:49 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:40210) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1feFlO-0004HP-M2; Sat, 14 Jul 2018 04:18:46 -0400 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2890 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1feFlO-0001he-2l; Sat, 14 Jul 2018 04:18:46 -0400 Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 11:18:49 +0300 Message-Id: <83k1pyb57a.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Drew Adams In-reply-to: (message from Drew Adams on Wed, 11 Jul 2018 06:50:44 -0700 (PDT)) Subject: Re: bug#32125: 26; Doc of `seqp` versus `sequencep` References: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 32125 Cc: 32125@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -6.0 (------) > Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 06:50:44 -0700 (PDT) > From: Drew Adams > > Neither the doc strings nor the descriptions in (elisp) `Sequence > Functions' make clear what the difference is between these predicates. I think it does: This function returns non-‘nil’ if OBJECT is a sequence (a list or array), or any additional type of sequence defined via ‘seq.el’ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ generic functions. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > (It's not even clear why `seq' was added. What's that about?) See above. At least on the level your question was asked, the answer is clearly there. > And the name `seqp' seems like a bad choice. the predicate names > themselves should at least give some hint of the difference. Is this a separate bug? Is it really important? > The doc for `seqp' should not just punt and tell users to go look in > `seq.el' to figure out what it means: "or any additional type of > sequence defined via 'seq.el' generic functions." What would you suggest as a better wording? The difficulty here is that seq.el provides features that are inherently extensible, so I don't think an exhaustive list can be given. But I might be wrong. > And in (elisp) `Sequence Functions' the entries for these two predicates > should be right next to each other. I don't see a compelling reason to have them adjacent, but I did add some text in the description of each one of them to mention the other one. Thanks. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Sep 28 13:34:57 2019 Received: (at 32125-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Sep 2019 17:34:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51127 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iEGcT-0004zn-36 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 13:34:57 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-f182.google.com ([209.85.214.182]:45310) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iEGcR-0004za-CA for 32125-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 13:34:55 -0400 Received: by mail-pl1-f182.google.com with SMTP id u12so2273714pls.12 for <32125-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 10:34:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6iDTW4luoGTEGT1vFBywl/UutI2KwuIN5cz0UxqBQWk=; b=tTNNiMoY7B5ly61NycIV3EChE4xTZTSs0mUZGKlOrsAY75oErrAJZUwFBxzM0tkBZr 2zDPvp9PnUIxNZ64N39bcggkcEpjzoLsT7S6SAoxGE1Nb1eHuKn/oKQM/qotIQK6+ro8 QsKFF1rQNqSgZTVPxO6ACIagISzGgXG66x0/vnpRSNlxSK3s01M6+7HAkDTDO+EgPzIy HViKkE6fR85T6bkbcLAp65A1iCBcDir1JXaLI+E3Citl2FjtaYWEqo1iLWD4QTiJx8bI StSPlI3Z3aH0lb+dbXZqPvvPuaCy1UAVHzZsABEI2bgUq+1oPP1FDQzMasL2oZgp7xch T6sA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVSD0i6kpsouYwX6fek8TRzJHjxa6ShjvGbeqg7RYcv0I+qdOuK W398UnoWvLzbsDxuL61LlbE49L/azHREQwRgj2o= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw/f3VyPqpIZTgtA1lYn2VPBLGSTELr58AEH1nMAJe37GNhvGc+7Z6HigiSBVFG6tLN0W7ePZqGCXzy3rt5ZmU= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:a515:: with SMTP id s21mr11878805plq.259.1569692089589; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 10:34:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Stefan Kangas Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 19:34:38 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#32125: 26; Doc of `seqp` versus `sequencep` To: Eli Zaretskii Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 32125-done Cc: 32125-done@debbugs.gnu.org, Drew Adams X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 06:50:44 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Drew Adams >> >> Neither the doc strings nor the descriptions in (elisp) `Sequence >> Functions' make clear what the difference is between these predicates. > > I think it does: > > This function returns non-=E2=80=98nil=E2=80=99 if OBJECT is a seque= nce (a list or > array), or any additional type of sequence defined via =E2=80=98seq.= el=E2=80=99 > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > generic functions. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> (It's not even clear why `seq' was added. What's that about?) > > See above. At least on the level your question was asked, the answer > is clearly there. > >> And the name `seqp' seems like a bad choice. the predicate names >> themselves should at least give some hint of the difference. > > Is this a separate bug? Is it really important? > >> The doc for `seqp' should not just punt and tell users to go look in >> `seq.el' to figure out what it means: "or any additional type of >> sequence defined via 'seq.el' generic functions." > > What would you suggest as a better wording? The difficulty here is > that seq.el provides features that are inherently extensible, so I > don't think an exhaustive list can be given. But I might be wrong. > >> And in (elisp) `Sequence Functions' the entries for these two predicates >> should be right next to each other. > > I don't see a compelling reason to have them adjacent, but I did add > some text in the description of each one of them to mention the other > one. Last update here was one year ago, and I can't see that there is anything else to do here after Eli's fixes. I'm therefore closing this bug. If anyone disagrees, feel free to re-open. Best regards, Stefan Kangas From unknown Sat Jun 14 14:29:48 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 11:24:05 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator