GNU bug report logs -
#32125
26; Doc of `seqp` versus `sequencep`
Previous Next
Reported by: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:53:01 UTC
Severity: wishlist
Done: Stefan Kangas <stefan <at> marxist.se>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Your bug report
#32125: 26; Doc of `seqp` versus `sequencep`
which was filed against the emacs package, has been closed.
The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to 32125 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.
--
32125: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=32125
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems
[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]
Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 06:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
>>
>> 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.
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
[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]
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=x86_64-w64-mingw32
--without-compress-install 'CFLAGS=-O2 -static -g3''
This bug report was last modified 5 years and 232 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.