GNU bug report logs -
#33998
27.0.50; cl-delete does not delete the first list element
Previous Next
Reported by: Deus Max <deusmax <at> gmx.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:48:01 UTC
Severity: minor
Tags: notabug
Found in version 27.0.50
Done: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
> > Without setting variable `seq' (i.e., without
> > the `setq'), that variable is still bound to
> > whatever it was bound to prior to your invoking
> > `(cl-delete thing seq)'. Presumably it was
> > bound to a cons.
>
> It could have been bound to a vector. cl-delete (as delq, delete)
> accepts sequences. And contrary to those two, it makes
> no guarantees as to how it potentially destroys the original
> sequence. So unless you're relying on a particular
> implementation, relying on SEQ after calling cl-delete on it
> is a bad, bad idea.
>
> So yes, always (setq SEQ (cl-delete THING SEQ)). With
> the extraordinary exception that you're leaving the scope
> where SEQ is visible. Then you can bypass it.
I'm repeating myself, so I'll stop here.
You are _not_ "calling cl-delete on it", where "it"
is the variable SEQ. You are calling the function
on its value, whether that value is a vector, a
list or any other kind of sequence. `cl-delete'
never sees, smells, or hears the variable.
It all depends what a user intends by "relying on
SEQ". If you ALWAYS mean relying on its value to
be what `cl-delete' returns then sure, clearly you
must ALWAYS set it to that return value. If in
some case you instead mean relying on it not to be
affected by `cl-delete' then you won't want to
assign it to the result of invoking `cl-delete'.
It's not about implementation of `cl-delete'. It's
not about the type of sequence you pass it. It's
about a variable being something different from its
value.
This bug report was last modified 6 years and 129 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.