GNU bug report logs - #37930
26.3; Elisp manual: please remove index entry `seq library'

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 37930 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 37930 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 26.3; Elisp manual: please remove index entry `seq library'
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 13:53:18 -0700 (PDT)

These are all of the index entries with "library" in them:

 commentary, in a Lisp library
 dynamic-library-alist
 find library 
 image-load-path-for-library
 library
 library compilation
 library header comments
 library search
 Lisp library
 load-library
 locate-library
 seq library

`seq library' does not belong here.  (Either that or entries also belong
for some or all of the umpteen other libraries provided in an Emacs
distribution.)

In GNU Emacs 26.3 (build 1, x86_64-w64-mingw32)
 of 2019-08-29
Repository revision: 96dd0196c28bc36779584e47fffcca433c9309cd
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 10.0.17763
Configured using:
 `configure --without-dbus --host=x86_64-w64-mingw32
 --without-compress-install 'CFLAGS=-O2 -static -g3''

Message #8 received at 37930 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 37930 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#37930: 26.3;
 Elisp manual: please remove index entry `seq library'
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 10:18:20 +0300

tags 37930 wontfix
close 37930
thanks

> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 13:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
> 
>  commentary, in a Lisp library
>  dynamic-library-alist
>  find library 
>  image-load-path-for-library
>  library
>  library compilation
>  library header comments
>  library search
>  Lisp library
>  load-library
>  locate-library
>  seq library
> 
> `seq library' does not belong here.

Disagree.  You are assessing index entries from a completely wrong
angle.

> (Either that or entries also belong for some or all of the umpteen
> other libraries provided in an Emacs distribution.)

May I suggest to re-read the well-known quotation about consistency by
Ralph Waldo Emerson?

There's no need for consistency here.

Message #15 received at 37930 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 37930 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#37930: 26.3; Elisp manual: please remove index entry `seq
 library'
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 08:00:09 -0700 (PDT)

> tags 37930 wontfix
> close 37930
>
> >  commentary, in a Lisp library
> >  dynamic-library-alist
> >  find library
> >  image-load-path-for-library
> >  library
> >  library compilation
> >  library header comments
> >  library search
> >  Lisp library
> >  load-library
> >  locate-library
> >  seq library
> >
> > `seq library' does not belong here.
> 
> Disagree.  You are assessing index entries from
> a completely wrong angle.

What angle is that?

You disagree that `seq library' doesn't belong.
Fair enough.  Why do you think it belongs?

You didn't address the substance of the report:
lack of a reason why it should be present.

What's a good reason why it, alone among our
many libraries, should have an index entry of
that form?

That's what begs justifying.  There's no need
to justify some imagined purist consistency.

There should be no special need for a reason
to remove it, if there's no reason to have it.

Maybe there's a good reason for entry `seq
library'.  It's not obvious to me.  If so,
please say what it is.  I'd like to understand.

> > (Either that or entries also belong for
> > some or all of the umpteen other libraries
> > provided in an Emacs distribution.)
> 
> May I suggest to re-read the well-known
> quotation about consistency by Ralph Waldo
> Emerson?
> 
> There's no need for consistency here.

(Once again, BTW) no one has argued for blind
and systematic consistency.  That's never a
requirement.  And I'd be the last person to
argue for that.

Occam's razor: If there's no good reason to
add `seq library', why add it?  If there's a
reason for it _then_ close the report (after
providing the reason, please).

Message #18 received at 37930 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 37930 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#37930: 26.3; Elisp manual: please remove index entry `seq
 library'
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 18:12:32 +0300

> Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 08:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
> Cc: 37930 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > >  commentary, in a Lisp library
> > >  dynamic-library-alist
> > >  find library
> > >  image-load-path-for-library
> > >  library
> > >  library compilation
> > >  library header comments
> > >  library search
> > >  Lisp library
> > >  load-library
> > >  locate-library
> > >  seq library
> > >
> > > `seq library' does not belong here.
> > 
> > Disagree.  You are assessing index entries from
> > a completely wrong angle.
> 
> What angle is that?

That of consistency.  As expressed by "doesn't belong".

> You disagree that `seq library' doesn't belong.
> Fair enough.  Why do you think it belongs?

That's a wrong question, when talking about index entries.  the
important question is "is it useful?"

> Maybe there's a good reason for entry `seq
> library'.  It's not obvious to me.

Not obvious to you doesn't mean you should file a bug report, or that
we should continue discussing this.

Message #21 received at 37930 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 37930 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#37930: 26.3; Elisp manual: please remove index entry `seq
 library'
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 08:55:11 -0700 (PDT)

> > > > `seq library' does not belong here.
> > >
> > > Disagree.  You are assessing index entries from
> > > a completely wrong angle.
> >
> > What angle is that?
> 
> That of consistency.  As expressed by "doesn't belong".
> 
> > You disagree that `seq library' doesn't belong.
> > Fair enough.  Why do you think it belongs?
> 
> That's a wrong question, when talking about index entries.  the
> important question is "is it useful?"

Fair enough.  Read it that way then, if you
want to quibble.

To me, it doesn't belong - it shouldn't be
present, because I don't see it as especially
useful.  But I'll be glad to learn how it is.

You don't say why it's useful.  In particular,
why is it more useful than an entry that could
be added for some other library?  What's so
useful about this entry for this library?

> > Maybe there's a good reason for entry `seq
> > library'.  It's not obvious to me.
> 
> Not obvious to you doesn't mean you should file a bug report, or that
> we should continue discussing this.

I should file a bug report when I think it can
help improve Emacs.  And that's what I do.

Please don't tell others when or whether they
_should_ file bug reports.  You can close any
report that you don't think is helpful.

Message #24 received at 37930 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 37930 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#37930: 26.3; Elisp manual: please remove index entry `seq
 library'
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 19:10:00 +0300

> Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 08:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
> Cc: 37930 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > > You disagree that `seq library' doesn't belong.
> > > Fair enough.  Why do you think it belongs?
> > 
> > That's a wrong question, when talking about index entries.  the
> > important question is "is it useful?"
> 
> Fair enough.  Read it that way then, if you
> want to quibble.

"Quibble", thanks a lot.

> To me, it doesn't belong - it shouldn't be
> present, because I don't see it as especially
> useful.  But I'll be glad to learn how it is.

How else do you get to functions from that library in the manual?

> > Not obvious to you doesn't mean you should file a bug report, or that
> > we should continue discussing this.
> 
> I should file a bug report when I think it can
> help improve Emacs.  And that's what I do.
> 
> Please don't tell others when or whether they
> _should_ file bug reports.

Your bug report was considered and rejected.  Why do you continue
arguing instead of accepting the decision?  This is a recurring
pattern with you, and one that makes it so unnecessarily hard handling
your bug reports.  People avoid responding to your bug reports because
of that.  I myself sometimes avoid them.  This is unnecessary, and
actually harms Emacs.

Please consider not arguing about decisions to close your bug reports.

> You can close any report that you don't think is helpful.

I already did.  But it doesn't seem to help, not with bugs filed by
you.

Previous Next

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