GNU bug report logs - #32125
26; Doc of `seqp` versus `sequencep`

Previous Next

Full log

Message #8 received at 32125 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 32125 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#32125: 26; Doc of `seqp` versus `sequencep`
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 11:18:49 +0300

> 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.

Thanks.

Previous Next

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