From unknown Fri Jun 20 07:15:01 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#39557 <39557@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#39557 <39557@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: 27.0.60; Elisp manual, doc about bignums Reply-To: bug#39557 <39557@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 14:15:01 +0000 retitle 39557 27.0.60; Elisp manual, doc about bignums reassign 39557 emacs submitter 39557 Drew Adams severity 39557 wishlist thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Feb 10 18:55:14 2020 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Feb 2020 23:55:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55708 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j1ItV-0001eO-Ke for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:55:13 -0500 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:50255) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j1ItT-0001eF-1v for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:55:12 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50804) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j1ItR-00073u-Li for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:55:10 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j1ItP-0006Dg-32 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:55:08 -0500 Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com ([141.146.126.78]:46588) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j1ItO-00065j-RU for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:55:07 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01ANmeRh095726 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 23:55:04 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-2020-01-29; bh=c0Cx9t5LqBFI/bnZrERezYT6fNx7rujqXgLvu6N3O6I=; b=C4XU8/rv0G6v5/EOK62iyarkyXuoIZBWvpSUGs1hL2ynXTJkfyd87PzBWKZ9UsEyXejz hHg1pxaDnMDvNLteKuKNdpjbFuAJBU9eYEHxK/5GpRMfo4tseHlLkXQfAYp5c1HMGGzP 7x86EmGEFbKE0HuLxxYQG8gKUdw5m+mmbgeJ3netvGcM/DblezwEbp5cPPf+tvcQfGuf A9V1pcH2NdCkQ2tThMyoc943Lf2qfKri8HlM26ah+3/I6WeqKirsuHIKrvPDRhxussaC alAVlpi9MMZ02MkQDvUVWXYnJVZgCEIieUlG8lqT+QzH7iGLNGUR3CHsSnwLwJPQSj7C 3A== Received: from aserp3030.oracle.com (aserp3030.oracle.com [141.146.126.71]) by aserp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y2jx60awv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 23:55:04 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01ANm7Qt140917 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 23:55:04 GMT Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by aserp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y26htw7rk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 23:55:04 +0000 Received: from abhmp0012.oracle.com (abhmp0012.oracle.com [141.146.116.18]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 01ANt3Tx024883 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 23:55:03 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <3d420026-bb32-413f-9a9c-304240aa82e2@default> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 15:55:03 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: 27.0.60; Elisp manual, doc about bignums X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4954.0 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9527 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxlogscore=891 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=1 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002100169 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9527 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxlogscore=956 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=1 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002100169 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 141.146.126.78 X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) 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: -0.7 (/) The Elisp manual's presentation of fixnums and bignums could be improved. It should say something similar to what the Common Lisp manual says: Common Lisp is designed to hide this distinction as much as possible; the distinction between fixnums and bignums is visible to the user in only a few places where the efficiency of representation is important. Exactly which integers are fixnums is implementation-dependent; typically they will be those integers in the range -2**n to 2**(n-1), inclusive, for some n not less than 15. See most-positive-fixnum and most-negative-fixnum. IOW, don't worry about whether an integer is a fixnum or a bignum, in general. Instead, right off the bat the Elisp doc tells users: Some functions in Emacs accept only fixnums. Also, while fixnums can always be compared for numeric equality with 'eq', bignums require more-heavyweight equality predicates like 'eql'." That's really the _last_ thing we should tell users, not the first. And even if we tell them something like that we should NOT emphasize using `eq' ("bignums _require_..."). We should NOT give users the impression that they should want to avoid the "more-heavyweight" comparison function `eql'. We should instead tell users, right away, that they can (and typically should) use `eql' for comparing any integers, regardless of whether they happen, on this or that platform/machine, to be fixnums or bignums. I'm really surprised this doc got inserted as it is. Using `eq' is only an optimisation; it's platform/machine-specific; and it makes users worry about whether the numbers being compared are both fixnums. (Sure, they can always test first with `fixnump' or `bignump', but still...) And I don't see where the doc tells you how the Lisp reader treats an integer numeral - when it gives you a fixnum and when it gives you a bignum. Shouldn't it tell you that you get a fixnum whenever the value is within the fixnum range (if that's in fact the case)? I mean, if you're going to be comparing against a literal value, and the doc slants you toward using `eq' as it does, you'll at least want to know whether some numeral ends up as a fixnum or a bignum. (Sure, you can always test it...) (BTW, this doc should probably also mention that the numerical value of a marker is an integer. Sure, if they follow the link to node Markers they'll find that out, but still.) In GNU Emacs 27.0.60 (build 1, x86_64-w64-mingw32) of 2019-12-28 Repository revision: 21c3020fcec0a32122d2680a391864a75393031b Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 10.0.18362 Configured using: `configure --without-dbus --host=3Dx86_64-w64-mingw32 --without-compress-install -C 'CFLAGS=3D-O2 -static -g3'' From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 11 12:02:03 2020 Received: (at 39557) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Feb 2020 17:02:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57424 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j1YvC-0005DD-TU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:02:03 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:57266) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j1YvB-0005Ch-8t for 39557@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:02:01 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:47379) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j1Yv5-0007sW-9i; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:01:55 -0500 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3378 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1j1Yv4-0008Vc-HQ; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:01:54 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 19:01:51 +0200 Message-Id: <8336bhrrb4.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Drew Adams In-reply-to: <3d420026-bb32-413f-9a9c-304240aa82e2@default> (message from Drew Adams on Mon, 10 Feb 2020 15:55:03 -0800 (PST)) Subject: Re: bug#39557: 27.0.60; Elisp manual, doc about bignums References: <3d420026-bb32-413f-9a9c-304240aa82e2@default> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 39557 Cc: 39557@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: -1.7 (-) > Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 15:55:03 -0800 (PST) > From: Drew Adams > > Some functions in Emacs accept only fixnums. Also, while fixnums can > always be compared for numeric equality with 'eq', bignums require > more-heavyweight equality predicates like 'eql'." > > That's really the _last_ thing we should tell users, not the first. > > And even if we tell them something like that we should NOT emphasize > using `eq' ("bignums _require_..."). We should NOT give users the > impression that they should want to avoid the "more-heavyweight" > comparison function `eql'. > > We should instead tell users, right away, that they can (and typically > should) use `eql' for comparing any integers, regardless of whether they > happen, on this or that platform/machine, to be fixnums or bignums. > > I'm really surprised this doc got inserted as it is. > > Using `eq' is only an optimisation; it's platform/machine-specific; and > it makes users worry about whether the numbers being compared are both > fixnums. (Sure, they can always test first with `fixnump' or `bignump', > but still...) > > And I don't see where the doc tells you how the Lisp reader treats an > integer numeral - when it gives you a fixnum and when it gives you a > bignum. Shouldn't it tell you that you get a fixnum whenever the value > is within the fixnum range (if that's in fact the case)? I mean, if > you're going to be comparing against a literal value, and the doc slants > you toward using `eq' as it does, you'll at least want to know whether > some numeral ends up as a fixnum or a bignum. (Sure, you can always > test it...) There seems to be a contradiction here: where we do describe the difference between fixnums and bignums, you argue that we shouldn't, but then you pick up a place where we don't distinguish between them, and you argue that we should... From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 11 13:26:18 2020 Received: (at 39557) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Feb 2020 18:26:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57519 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j1aEk-0000pO-3Y for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:26:18 -0500 Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:51482) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j1aEi-0000ox-Tk for 39557@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:26:17 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (userp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01BIJ1CC152171; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:26:11 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=Tq0nTmhGHRk7T8rulvftY4Y85rGJMfDWVy2+SnnBjYQ=; b=hu7s+o2PYSGRVWJtaEUGpwEUxp8sR9ArI85ijadYChh5q5DJ6xDpyYdbSt6q1fFKtyJ2 q/u+X1K3LyyouyIzAO62Jk/jVNDehqnE8Ktvbb47somj8Xhf2spZZbc463nD0svUd5ui YWlvHSsA/D6/3n1gqqDUvawx/QYxyuCUz40rEUHmF0mu6bFwlvOuDegUNLHC8Nou/qJA x2dvkMjFL4WSwxGYOD1pHvCi46a4fvOWhEfspOIVWqGWCeLeqtHgPzjRIp/YIXd2Tbi0 5N6NoFfsmx9mLW00K67RlU/8MjnGtIuBPsG2DILjB+sANWzz/9DiVPWQhl3QdtnZxUdp cg== Received: from aserp3030.oracle.com (aserp3030.oracle.com [141.146.126.71]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y2p3sd54e-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:26:11 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01BIIA4J039594; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:26:09 GMT Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by aserp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y26hvd5dk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:26:09 +0000 Received: from abhmp0008.oracle.com (abhmp0008.oracle.com [141.146.116.14]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 01BIQ93D003132; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:26:09 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <77485d0f-28cc-46a1-a459-34e6fef7083a@default> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 10:26:08 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: Eli Zaretskii , Drew Adams Subject: RE: bug#39557: 27.0.60; Elisp manual, doc about bignums References: <<3d420026-bb32-413f-9a9c-304240aa82e2@default>> <<8336bhrrb4.fsf@gnu.org>> In-Reply-To: <<8336bhrrb4.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4954.0 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9528 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxlogscore=556 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002110126 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9528 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=611 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1011 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002110126 X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 39557 Cc: 39557@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: -3.3 (---) > > Some functions in Emacs accept only fixnums. Also, while fixnums can > > always be compared for numeric equality with 'eq', bignums require > > more-heavyweight equality predicates like 'eql'." > > > > That's really the _last_ thing we should tell users, not the first. > > > > And even if we tell them something like that we should NOT emphasize > > using `eq' ("bignums _require_..."). We should NOT give users the > > impression that they should want to avoid the "more-heavyweight" > > comparison function `eql'. > > > > We should instead tell users, right away, that they can (and typically > > should) use `eql' for comparing any integers, regardless of whether the= y > > happen, on this or that platform/machine, to be fixnums or bignums. > > > > I'm really surprised this doc got inserted as it is. > > > > Using `eq' is only an optimisation; it's platform/machine-specific; and > > it makes users worry about whether the numbers being compared are both > > fixnums. (Sure, they can always test first with `fixnump' or `bignump'= , > > but still...) > > > > And I don't see where the doc tells you how the Lisp reader treats an > > integer numeral - when it gives you a fixnum and when it gives you a > > bignum. Shouldn't it tell you that you get a fixnum whenever the value > > is within the fixnum range (if that's in fact the case)? I mean, if > > you're going to be comparing against a literal value, and the doc slant= s > > you toward using `eq' as it does, you'll at least want to know whether > > some numeral ends up as a fixnum or a bignum. (Sure, you can always > > test it...) >=20 > There seems to be a contradiction here: where we do describe the > difference between fixnums and bignums, you argue that we shouldn't, > but then you pick up a place where we don't distinguish between them, > and you argue that we should... Maybe read again what I wrote. I didn't say we should not describe the difference between the two. Not at all. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 11 14:14:23 2020 Received: (at 39557) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Feb 2020 19:14:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57558 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j1azH-00022C-NH for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:14:23 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:55601) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j1azG-000220-FC for 39557@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:14:22 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:49623) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j1azA-0006JS-Uh; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:14:17 -0500 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3933 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1j1az8-0008C9-6E; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:14:15 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 21:14:07 +0200 Message-Id: <83wo8tq6m8.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Drew Adams In-reply-to: <77485d0f-28cc-46a1-a459-34e6fef7083a@default> (message from Drew Adams on Tue, 11 Feb 2020 10:26:08 -0800 (PST)) Subject: Re: bug#39557: 27.0.60; Elisp manual, doc about bignums References: <<3d420026-bb32-413f-9a9c-304240aa82e2@default>> <<8336bhrrb4.fsf@gnu.org>> <77485d0f-28cc-46a1-a459-34e6fef7083a@default> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 39557 Cc: 39557@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: -1.7 (-) > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 10:26:08 -0800 (PST) > From: Drew Adams > Cc: 39557@debbugs.gnu.org > > > There seems to be a contradiction here: where we do describe the > > difference between fixnums and bignums, you argue that we shouldn't, > > but then you pick up a place where we don't distinguish between them, > > and you argue that we should... > > Maybe read again what I wrote. Maybe read again what I wrote. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 11 16:47:03 2020 Received: (at 39557) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Feb 2020 21:47:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57664 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j1dN0-0001Cu-Qc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 16:47:03 -0500 Received: from mail-qk1-f182.google.com ([209.85.222.182]:43102) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j1dMy-0001CQ-Th for 39557@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 16:47:01 -0500 Received: by mail-qk1-f182.google.com with SMTP id p7so14546qkh.10 for <39557@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:47:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=+fXUo8O9y4xgSv9nTxfuv+pnwZAFfuC3/JOs//O9Xz8=; b=kVN9dOXNOuO3SY+ZO1A8r649uvTsMmS8MEkpy/mdGllsK73aXupukPlCT/NZjqbiKx 7hKOH3Xz8vLI+gLG2KaAkWJ1+LthmiGdxTjBKyoiHydqnxRCCUCGUd0qxfkvW8KrzBiN oEdJosoXcqthTVu5NHhfctx3/lyIvYS2dymI6dBMSR4td7Ds9iqj7uAB+2xs76Z2j8S1 qbURnNQIawqQS1u7F0UDgfUogYZjZyGbZXBDCfX0EV6vnv4C0oV6F4x0gfD6/HhMvlAP AYojqYym5t8LV85vpS5LT3LCEd97OSllwlNvAP08vYxwr925ypjbznWHfoZBsVzR2ckc Be2w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=+fXUo8O9y4xgSv9nTxfuv+pnwZAFfuC3/JOs//O9Xz8=; b=oGjKxq/Sg1Hlaz/L578MO5uwmvNlz9WO1mLfKIphqTqkvkd+CKC7fIgOV/NXXAhQam yVb2AMpBAAOod0Pk0fGa85cUkq+3VdRudL/sIGLHXKHuLHXA1Rh6rmE0q/yZHtFI+ehq Pd8kLfFwmw8Vwf3cPwn+8D85JV1e5vBRCXHSaaj2DGfcHGwGU8wSnsBhsmkYa6BvZQeN Ce1J5CjLXqUrxxAaTnLSgMk4hDLHrzPqhpX8o+fgUlNlwhbhrHm6eC0ijqa0Jex/vPIE SLDC2w+Y6Rj/7Tbu1rEKQyef21mW4sJc5fnvwQy5JznI3LFHH1pbkqDT6DiLT2R78hDT GbfQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVOsewExP/XS2t7QBAemeihQNNCSh4gTe4Plgl+QUZxi7oUqgAO Pxu6dn4oIP5JljGH9VfLhBbVLPk00G8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxJTE9wSyFyx+DykktSshe6x4dPiPJVLNG5cKqDYELeb6FXrusL8fmdGnJSgQKiRBq9FK1nSw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:100d:: with SMTP id z13mr8308789qkj.266.1581457615194; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:46:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost2 (CPE001143542e1f-CMf81d0f809fa0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [99.230.38.42]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 11sm2658124qkc.54.2020.02.11.13.46.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:46:53 -0800 (PST) From: Noam Postavsky To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: bug#39557: 27.0.60; Elisp manual, doc about bignums References: <3d420026-bb32-413f-9a9c-304240aa82e2@default> <8336bhrrb4.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 16:46:53 -0500 In-Reply-To: <8336bhrrb4.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Tue, 11 Feb 2020 19:01:51 +0200") Message-ID: <85sgjgyeya.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (windows-nt) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 39557 Cc: 39557@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: -1.0 (-) Eli Zaretskii writes: > There seems to be a contradiction here: where we do describe the > difference between fixnums and bignums, you argue that we shouldn't, > but then you pick up a place where we don't distinguish between them, > and you argue that we should... I think Drew intended the argument that we should distinguish them as a sarcastic reductio ad absurdum. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 11 17:34:34 2020 Received: (at 39557) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Feb 2020 22:34:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57686 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j1e6z-0002Lr-T9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 17:34:34 -0500 Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:32804) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j1e6y-0002La-D3 for 39557@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 17:34:32 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (userp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01BMV89n147094; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:34:26 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=5jk8cWKQDs4dnfHcvMKrSq4LfSASYcgiZoopYBcpNOk=; b=EBmJ4w1pWo+RqNDDWVG+7CVV/Y1cfDiqlV9gGDbq1adrdB6tjBbv2kJoAtGYeSxWmCoY PEiKR2v+DOeioA7O8n1vANPLPmmvA03gExzvOyw4yu2wXvkHPePOwStasMwqxuAqnXny T7kiTx0aK3RNCJglw0fhuN/0V33jNY8yT71r0O14se+a9wVZD1iHKkgsjxjk8zC6lEXy cIUpmP5yDmZrNRUjrnonWjIEE12CW1W4AaGlqQ4wy+vcDZxD0ipLP8o79o4m2b3ci85X JyHEmPdqdAK3hMU0YSDnu6k3Q0Y5dKN4ehHIopx/Szl7bSEMzKmezYTEdqWFkcc0X9DI IQ== Received: from aserp3030.oracle.com (aserp3030.oracle.com [141.146.126.71]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y2p3seftx-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:34:26 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01BMSAHV045951; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:34:25 GMT Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by aserp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y26hvqw57-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:34:25 +0000 Received: from abhmp0008.oracle.com (abhmp0008.oracle.com [141.146.116.14]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 01BMYMbB030709; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:34:24 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <7f19329d-6d7e-40e1-9c5c-ef6b58e25a62@default> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:34:22 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: Noam Postavsky , Eli Zaretskii Subject: RE: bug#39557: 27.0.60; Elisp manual, doc about bignums References: <3d420026-bb32-413f-9a9c-304240aa82e2@default> <8336bhrrb4.fsf@gnu.org> <85sgjgyeya.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <85sgjgyeya.fsf@gmail.com> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4954.0 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9528 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxlogscore=999 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002110147 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9528 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002110147 X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 39557 Cc: 39557@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: -3.3 (---) > > There seems to be a contradiction here: where we do describe the > > difference between fixnums and bignums, you argue that we shouldn't, > > but then you pick up a place where we don't distinguish between them, > > and you argue that we should... >=20 > I think Drew intended the argument that we should distinguish them as a > sarcastic reductio ad absurdum. Not at all. I wonder why you would think that, especially when I reiterated: I didn't say we should not describe the difference between the two. Not at all. It's appropriate to distinguish them in the doc, since they are distinguished in reality. They have different behavior. I argued for treatment similar to what the Common Lisp doc provides. (And I pointed to that doc. You might want to take a look.) The Common Lisp doc guides you to, a priori, treating them the same in your code that uses them. That is, as a general rule, ignore their difference as much as possible -- think integer. And that means think (use) `eql'. If and when you really need to distinguish them in practice (rare), then do so. And of course the doc should tell you how to do that. I object to the doc about integers starting off by telling you "bignums require more-heavyweight predicates like `eql'", and possibly giving the mistaken impression that you should in general try to use fixnums and `eq'. That's the wrong message to send, IMO, whether explicit or not. The main message of the doc about integers and comparison is that you should, in general, use `eql' - not `eq'. That message isn't delivered, and if you think it is then I'll just suggest that it's lost. I didn't say that we shouldn't mention that fixnums can be compared using `eq'. I said that's the _last_, not the first, thing we should tell them about fixnums and bignums. The fact that fixnums can be compared using `eq' is _not_ a wonderful feature. It can even represent a liability - a risk that users might compare integers generally using `eq'. The use case for comparing integers with `eq' is a corner case. But this doc puts it front and center, as if it were important, or a cool trick that real lispers use: use fixnums as integers because you can use `eq', which isn't so "heavyweight". The message should be to compare integers with `eql' - do NOT use `eq'. --- We can (but we really need not) add that if, for some reason, you know that both numbers are fixnums, then you can use `eq'. But don't start with that. I wouldn't suggest that we even add here that using `eq' is more performant than `eql'. Users who know more generally that `eq' is faster than `eql' will know whether it makes sense for them to use `eq' in any given case when both integers are known to be fixnums. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 12 10:53:19 2020 Received: (at 39557) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Feb 2020 15:53:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58958 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j1uKF-0003iw-5C for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 10:53:19 -0500 Received: from mail-qt1-f175.google.com ([209.85.160.175]:33699) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j1uKD-0003ij-EX for 39557@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 10:53:17 -0500 Received: by mail-qt1-f175.google.com with SMTP id d5so1949479qto.0 for <39557@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 07:53:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=4dAVgHM7/PouiBLrXp42Om3xKgIGTygo8F6/U2wu/r8=; b=bQpuyExUszzWQguhZHlQW/YM3utHyzq8UGiGoksnTHrG+yqGL609wmhQvvTDc8hrmO 0CQ+jG0f0pr2oRBmMPDnp1Bfgfib18S/b/1fa5aXwOAZDhORC7FLY4ou0+J+pMLZAw0S IyfJHHO44o6btFArH4315YV7wN/P7ZIH3WiaWTWNcOEboi0vwgtAwWjfgpwVrugb5Zia xeGFKHb6Nn4zTKuxXcJCQLTUhC3bqzbnyaNxbw1w24rMOLKnNU7F/PCjk9afJV618Z10 HIob2XVnb/ZT6/mpdgftGHdb5vzQSQjvGxNlDwekf8OgIuVqfPb9/8wBKDkbvA5LVgnT njPw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=4dAVgHM7/PouiBLrXp42Om3xKgIGTygo8F6/U2wu/r8=; b=IdOKRDrUJF99E/pvWysO4UEdMP4cXbWaqms0zuuRkdhdefGgx+1uauC7SMx5CVAnsM dgUnQMnSMIX4dogWWzJUa88eVx5fgESkm95+zX0pecN/9kuk82jkhLtkXShzKvE/j52B Q1eFAv6Ikb2pTFurrDxp93Bn4uL5FHKRKy9wFXY/8Erjrxy96RnJWEATL5hNFnaFm/gh yVrh3AARXhVNqO798XSnqicNLxQ93J8tioM8ylQhPwTpWbvsyou07CoHA9i7iVVrHt1P Y91bYjtMnhO8T7F/+oOcRz8oVk4jHFAUgdnUN1Vo079njZ9h6zApENLWtUXIqF9vdRhC fDxA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV9z4YwKuJJXXyGNPUX4thcTnq4Go86ZUaFOZrcpYynm53venZF muv8PcQqr7F2ObYNTInKTv0GipU0U90= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzzkS1CJIlE3vBJtx8GlgnkO+TF69LVqLE9dXD1jORS2Z/PVTiHk5rocHWeG8AgE2UCA9VZRw== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:6bc9:: with SMTP id b9mr19752913qtt.108.1581522791305; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 07:53:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost2 (CPE001143542e1f-CMf81d0f809fa0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [99.230.38.42]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h20sm395949qkk.64.2020.02.12.07.53.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 12 Feb 2020 07:53:10 -0800 (PST) From: Noam Postavsky To: Drew Adams Subject: Re: bug#39557: 27.0.60; Elisp manual, doc about bignums References: <3d420026-bb32-413f-9a9c-304240aa82e2@default> <8336bhrrb4.fsf@gnu.org> <85sgjgyeya.fsf@gmail.com> <7f19329d-6d7e-40e1-9c5c-ef6b58e25a62@default> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 10:53:11 -0500 In-Reply-To: <7f19329d-6d7e-40e1-9c5c-ef6b58e25a62@default> (Drew Adams's message of "Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:34:22 -0800 (PST)") Message-ID: <85imkbyf88.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (windows-nt) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 39557 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 39557@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: -1.0 (-) Drew Adams writes: >> > There seems to be a contradiction here: where we do describe the >> > difference between fixnums and bignums, you argue that we shouldn't, >> > but then you pick up a place where we don't distinguish between them, >> > and you argue that we should... >> >> I think Drew intended the argument that we should distinguish them as a >> sarcastic reductio ad absurdum. > > Not at all. I wonder why you would think that, When you said this: I mean, if you're going to be comparing against a literal value, and the doc slants you toward using `eq' as it does since you *don't* want the doc to slant towards `eq', I read that paragraph as sarcastic. By the way, this I'm really surprised this doc got inserted as it is. is too easily read as a snide jab (I know, you didn't mean it that way), so it would be nice if you could leave out that kind of meta-opinion from future reports. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 12 15:06:48 2020 Received: (at 39557) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Feb 2020 20:06:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59091 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j1yHX-0001S6-TU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 15:06:48 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:51282) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j1yHW-0001Rr-E3 for 39557@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 15:06:46 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:41175) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j1yHR-0003HT-BV; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 15:06:41 -0500 Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1j1yHQ-0002L5-2Y; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 15:06:40 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 From: Richard Stallman To: Noam Postavsky In-Reply-To: <85sgjgyeya.fsf@gmail.com> (message from Noam Postavsky on Tue, 11 Feb 2020 16:46:53 -0500) Subject: Re: bug#39557: 27.0.60; Elisp manual, doc about bignums References: <3d420026-bb32-413f-9a9c-304240aa82e2@default> <8336bhrrb4.fsf@gnu.org> <85sgjgyeya.fsf@gmail.com> Message-Id: Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 15:06:40 -0500 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 39557 Cc: eliz@gnu.org, 39557@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: , Reply-To: rms@gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > I think Drew intended the argument that we should distinguish them as a > sarcastic reductio ad absurdum. I urge everyone to avoid sarcasm on our mailing lists. It creates a risk of misunderstandings, and gives no benefit. See https://gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html. -- Dr Richard Stallman Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org) From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 12 16:36:32 2020 Received: (at 39557) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Feb 2020 21:36:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59128 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j1zgO-0003WL-9f for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 16:36:32 -0500 Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:58882) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j1zgM-0003W7-56 for 39557@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 16:36:30 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (userp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01CLVENv128426; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 21:36:23 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=GlnXyjkOLo+WCxyj8dq17iuCIOOslaIIyxebYbguRRA=; b=q9XHOm87q+Se3etKly99M4RdYXS6XwGZmVd639oImYtmZZGzb2XgsRceaxC7FL1mZ6AO cVDBGafVEUq79eOCvH5L285sH0QjrsYTqAAm5vyDbFGZnKSd0S5t8w9OGE7mQpR+UKMg WHJds5VaZDRUcFbIfLgBge9K4Dv3amwmVGft9XP4GOe9FgmsS1pf1PsM6fZJBII1Th4g JuFdiMPXZIWwaKwgRo/ZsckvsQbfLe+QIylFDOZJ1zBjiquKWvA/zlo1ZTMSupkjG7mc YYVXVz977VCCIK0fMBvaM67jZQZHo5QgOegElincCPNIb4ogPPrKT5+Jc+s6r8WX6gQR 4A== Received: from aserp3030.oracle.com (aserp3030.oracle.com [141.146.126.71]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y2p3snkvu-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 12 Feb 2020 21:36:23 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01CLSEYx131077; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 21:36:23 GMT Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by aserp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y4k7xehbn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 12 Feb 2020 21:36:22 +0000 Received: from abhmp0004.oracle.com (abhmp0004.oracle.com [141.146.116.10]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 01CLaLEK032629; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 21:36:21 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <5fe049c8-18b5-4941-9e34-c320500f49d2@default> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 13:36:20 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: Noam Postavsky Subject: RE: bug#39557: 27.0.60; Elisp manual, doc about bignums References: <3d420026-bb32-413f-9a9c-304240aa82e2@default> <8336bhrrb4.fsf@gnu.org> <85sgjgyeya.fsf@gmail.com> <7f19329d-6d7e-40e1-9c5c-ef6b58e25a62@default> <85imkbyf88.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <85imkbyf88.fsf@gmail.com> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4954.0 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9529 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002120147 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9529 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002120147 X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 39557 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 39557@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: -3.3 (---) > >> I think Drew intended the argument that we should > >> distinguish them as a sarcastic reductio ad absurdum. > > > > Not at all. I wonder why you would think that, >=20 > When you said this: >=20 > I mean, if you're going to be comparing against a > literal value, and the doc slants you toward using > `eq' as it does >=20 > since you *don't* want the doc to slant towards `eq', > I read that paragraph as sarcastic. The actual quote: And I don't see where the doc tells you how the Lisp reader treats an integer numeral - when it gives you a fixnum and when it gives you a bignum. Shouldn't it tell you that you get a fixnum whenever the value is within the fixnum range (if that's in fact the case)? I mean, if you're going to be comparing against a literal value, and the doc slants you toward using `eq' as it does, you'll at least want to know whether some numeral ends up as a fixnum or a bignum. There's nothing the least bit sarcastic in any of that. That point/question is about what happens when a numeral is read and interpreted by Lisp. It suggests that we say something about that case. To use `eq' with a numeral you need to know when it's handled as a fixnum. If you use `eql' then that's not a consideration - you don't really need to know how the numeral is handled. But since the doc currently, in effect, promotes the use of `eq' somewhat, providing such info might help. There's no reductio ad absurdum there, let alone a sarcastic one. Putting this differently, if you compare an integer against an integer numeral then you had better use `eql', unless you know that both are fixnums, and for the latter to be true you need to know how numerals are handled. I'm guessing the following rule applies also in the case of interpreting a numeral - but if so then maybe it would help to say so explicitly: if Emacs computes an integer in fixnum range, it represents the integer as a fixnum, not a bignum. It's easy to think that a numeral isn't "computed", and so to not think that this rule applies to a numeral. At least I, as one reader, wondered how numerals are handled. > By the way, this >=20 > I'm really surprised this doc got inserted as it is. >=20 > is too easily read as a snide jab (I know, you > didn't mean it that way), so it would be nice if > you could leave out that kind of meta-opinion > from future reports. Is that a meta-opinion on your part? ;-) I think it may be too easy for you to read it that way because you're perhaps trying to read my bug reports that way. Maybe chill a bit? Actually, I was just expressing my surprise, as Eli usually shepherds new doc sufficiently well that such things don't happen. And I mean that sincerely, as a compliment. (Darn, another meta-opinion. (Darn, another meta-meta-opinion that risks being taken as sarcasm. (Darn, yet another. (D...)))) As for avoiding sarcasm (even humor) in mail: Sure. But a companion rule of etiquette might be to avoid attributing malevolence when a simple, constructive reading will do. The golden rule implies offering the benefit of the doubt. The "you" in my bug report was consistently the user. The report was technical, not a rant. It wasn't I who took this to the personal/meta level. How about we turn now to the technical content - the problem reported? Any thoughts on that? From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Feb 13 13:23:51 2020 Received: (at 39557) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Feb 2020 18:23:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60423 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j2J9S-0005yq-Sd for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:23:51 -0500 Received: from mail-qk1-f181.google.com ([209.85.222.181]:45983) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j2J9Q-0005yb-U1 for 39557@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:23:49 -0500 Received: by mail-qk1-f181.google.com with SMTP id a2so6583833qko.12 for <39557@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:23:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=n6+4gDgRHmLN3elv8ujcDI4HsZeUSfrjjADW/3SvTJ8=; b=nV6Hnr8VDrFKc+mHkQWkcliU6o0MTHltSqe8jBaqaED5DMffx9ggkWKpjFgjvNr9FM qfcfOum4lTY53LxRluI3tuCh1W4Mm4wk9y6XrzU67DFndikZ1Nc81GsUg196bY8OEVyL SBdLl/sHo6NF2lG/2REEl1dPEpKTpATkIFFQrtyOnZ3niwoJBZAkoO35LZnWVfj/g+R6 i8dUWKMKrDxjD0XcgNPZ6AJKjEclwPI9DFljGVuihvdSVqXAwJdVPsp1DCd5kC9igUm+ 7aP56v/dVRXUPwxXtZzwQDS/7ANt2cin88r81NsosDR10Sy+RfD9ARcqMsQ0xi5cvxlz UHFA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=n6+4gDgRHmLN3elv8ujcDI4HsZeUSfrjjADW/3SvTJ8=; b=edXnJ5Wt4EGU6abPxeDaU05f9EFQ1sZcNR82o/yHFmiS5cWYoHGMor5hi50C2O1Z6t 2b49JcfN8JjyoJMEPoaF+CpBMZNhcWrmtnyh7LfxHPhDg8U3KaFXCFNaT161gtRKJ7WU Ipo3ee+d6lE9wj0vN7nO49ZcKWkjiUPTtf80ueL+K2Xmp1JV0RO4oLWC72FUiA023v5d uldeauZZXJ4kNqN51cQyWtU03PaWIXY80ORuUNVn3So6ymm4rPjHh0kdUsM5WJ1LnnW/ ztzTGF+N0S1wH7gySyhKBXKXEiSVnd6l/WGTP1ugXz8o4Ifhe86HX1I9OO9xsH/ILZ3g MjHw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW7IK9MTNCP34fmAoPBCc1CzZ+bevZ6O7/SsLFPzxziBYcNAwiU itTnBBoKAMk08dMRlUpHFPAYcalwQ6k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyWFUQiWRXcEsMfXXMDbGUimBa8uhzV3oE1ACUY8PLXCooEPq5ELh+eee6FPPrEj7IfUdVHGQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2011:: with SMTP id c17mr392811qka.447.1581618223183; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:23:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost2 (CPE001143542e1f-CMf81d0f809fa0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [99.230.38.42]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x28sm1680991qkx.104.2020.02.13.10.23.41 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:23:42 -0800 (PST) From: Noam Postavsky To: Drew Adams Subject: Re: bug#39557: 27.0.60; Elisp manual, doc about bignums References: <3d420026-bb32-413f-9a9c-304240aa82e2@default> <8336bhrrb4.fsf@gnu.org> <85sgjgyeya.fsf@gmail.com> <7f19329d-6d7e-40e1-9c5c-ef6b58e25a62@default> <85imkbyf88.fsf@gmail.com> <5fe049c8-18b5-4941-9e34-c320500f49d2@default> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:23:43 -0500 In-Reply-To: <5fe049c8-18b5-4941-9e34-c320500f49d2@default> (Drew Adams's message of "Wed, 12 Feb 2020 13:36:20 -0800 (PST)") Message-ID: <85ftfexs5s.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (windows-nt) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 39557 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 39557@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: -1.0 (-) Drew Adams writes: > There's nothing the least bit sarcastic in any of that. [...] > avoid attributing malevolence when a simple, constructive reading will > do. The golden rule implies offering the benefit of the doubt. Yeah, I didn't intend to attribute malevolence; you wondered how I read sarcasm (which, even if it might not be the best technique for communication, isn't the same as ill-intent) in your message, so I explained. > Actually, I was just expressing my surprise, > as Eli usually shepherds new doc sufficiently > well that such things don't happen. And I > mean that sincerely, as a compliment. Although I do believe you meant it that way, I still struggle to read this as a compliment, even with the added explanation. > to the technical content - the problem > reported? Any thoughts on that? The idea is recommend using eql for comparing integers first, and move the description of eq and fixnum/bignum distinction to the next paragraph, right? And also to document when the reader returns fixnums or bignums. Though I guess that might instead be solved by making the rule you cited stronger to something like: Emacs always represents integers in fixnum range as a fixnum, not a bignum. (Assuming that's true, which I believe it is) From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Feb 13 16:03:58 2020 Received: (at 39557) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Feb 2020 21:03:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60534 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j2LeQ-0003M0-Dw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 16:03:58 -0500 Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com ([141.146.126.78]:37152) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j2LeM-0003Lm-Ik for 39557@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 16:03:55 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01DL2lCp134797; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 21:03:48 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=+gmMPCVFHcPCEP6Az7fg59SqBJJKfIGNEtisP/93pU8=; b=iktLC9LzSPIArHksoqZzD0Lw9q2lcQbHlQnXjUuxznTiR6pNjPHAbR4kLXVun/3JTVWv h3z0GuSkj2ADuGHZQxRb9uScd7SByA4yytrUWdJfyJi8a35OSiTU4j1mO2offEZFQsFb MY+ATPk02MgfS7Y5Z3J1lIxpponojwqy256E0rC8p+gcFTRR+o4bRRy/YhrM6L4piJwh 5MC7izpSbUs4uWrdGA2SkGiZ2HMQ+muAtKbvmv/k3eLorqZUj1X+7MCua6uS2oti708T zlfdSWyZTG31v0bkX6kNDVjPbmEV29rukyLQCSx2GBotoUIVBn4DqAgW/9O2FxcSGwnH hA== Received: from userp3030.oracle.com (userp3030.oracle.com [156.151.31.80]) by aserp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y2jx6nf3w-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 13 Feb 2020 21:03:48 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (userp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01DL3Mna069065; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 21:03:47 GMT Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by userp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y5dtf8p8s-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 13 Feb 2020 21:03:47 +0000 Received: from abhmp0003.oracle.com (abhmp0003.oracle.com [141.146.116.9]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 01DL3kmA017154; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 21:03:47 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2cf08bc2-be80-4943-9e1c-20a4b594950c@default> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 13:03:46 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: Noam Postavsky Subject: RE: bug#39557: 27.0.60; Elisp manual, doc about bignums References: <3d420026-bb32-413f-9a9c-304240aa82e2@default> <8336bhrrb4.fsf@gnu.org> <85sgjgyeya.fsf@gmail.com> <7f19329d-6d7e-40e1-9c5c-ef6b58e25a62@default> <85imkbyf88.fsf@gmail.com> <5fe049c8-18b5-4941-9e34-c320500f49d2@default> <85ftfexs5s.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <85ftfexs5s.fsf@gmail.com> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4954.0 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9530 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002130150 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9530 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002130150 X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 39557 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 39557@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: -3.3 (---) > > to the technical content - the problem > > reported? Any thoughts on that? >=20 > The idea is recommend using eql for comparing integers first, and move > the description of eq and fixnum/bignum distinction to the next > paragraph, right? Almost. Recommend `eql' generally for integers, even as, i.e., even _after_, pointing out that integers are either fixnums or bignums. IOW, it's a general recommendation, regardless of the fact that there are two kinds of integers. And in fact point out that you CANNOT use `eq', in general, to compare integers. That's part of the point about recommending `eql'. The recommendation is in spite of the fact that there are two kinds of integers - it applies to integers of both kinds, and `eq' cannot be used with integers of both kinds. And somewhere after that (whether the next paragraph or not), get into the fact that you can use `eq' (in addition to `eql') to compare two fixnums (BOTH must be known to be fixnums) - IF you think it's important to point that out. I think it's important to point out that you can _distinguish_ a fixnum from a bignum, and how to do that. But I can't say whether it's really important, in this doc, to say that you can compare two fixnums using `eq'. A priori, I'd think not. As I said earlier, AFAIK that's only an optimization, and anyone who is liable to use/need such optimizing should already know that `eq' is faster than `eql'. I don't think that _this_ doc needs to or should point out that `eql' is "more-heavyweight" than `eq'. That's not specific to integer comparison. To be clear, I have no objection to saying that you can use `eq' for two fixnums. I'm just not aware of why it's important to do that in this doc. > And also to document when the reader returns fixnums or bignums. Though > I guess that might instead be solved by making the rule you cited > stronger to something like: >=20 > Emacs always represents integers in fixnum range > as a fixnum, not a bignum. >=20 > (Assuming that's true, which I believe it is) Yes, that would be OK, provided we don't speak of "computing" the integer, which can be misleading for a literal (a numeral), or provided we make clear that that rule applies also to numerals. Thanks for working on this fix, if you do. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Feb 13 18:43:55 2020 Received: (at 39557) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Feb 2020 23:43:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60664 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j2O9C-0002jn-PC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:43:54 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:42908) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j2O9A-0002jb-Va for 39557@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:43:53 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:38867) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j2O95-0004bf-PH; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:43:47 -0500 Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1j2O94-000847-JE; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:43:46 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 From: Richard Stallman To: Noam Postavsky In-Reply-To: <85sgjgyeya.fsf@gmail.com> (message from Noam Postavsky on Tue, 11 Feb 2020 16:46:53 -0500) Subject: Re: bug#39557: 27.0.60; Elisp manual, doc about bignums References: <3d420026-bb32-413f-9a9c-304240aa82e2@default> <8336bhrrb4.fsf@gnu.org> <85sgjgyeya.fsf@gmail.com> Message-Id: Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:43:46 -0500 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 39557 Cc: eliz@gnu.org, 39557@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: , Reply-To: rms@gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] If nobody was really being sarcastic, that's good news. (We all misinterpret things sometimes.) I still urge everyone to avoid sarcasm on our mailing lists. See https://gnu.org/philosophy/kind-communication.html. -- Dr Richard Stallman Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org) From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Feb 17 17:05:48 2020 Received: (at 39557) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Feb 2020 22:05:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39328 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j3oWS-0006Jw-Gi for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 17:05:48 -0500 Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:48066) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j3oWQ-0006Ji-2o for 39557@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 17:05:47 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A07B16008E; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 14:05:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id GpiN4xN8H5vU; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 14:05:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C901C160093; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 14:05:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id OZIJ3cq3tQkQ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 14:05:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.9] (cpe-23-242-74-103.socal.res.rr.com [23.242.74.103]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 718FC16008E; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 14:05:38 -0800 (PST) To: Drew Adams From: Paul Eggert Subject: 27.0.60; Elisp manual, doc about bignums Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <8c6ed478-db97-8abc-de79-f5c10498ad0c@cs.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 14:05:38 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------3CC4C11A0F12FEA602E14350" Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 39557 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Noam Postavsky , 39557@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: -3.3 (---) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------3CC4C11A0F12FEA602E14350 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > That's really the _last_ thing we should tell users, not the first. I installed the first attached patch to move the distinction between fixnums and bignums to the end of the section. > Shouldn't it tell you that you get a fixnum whenever the value > is within the fixnum range (if that's in fact the case)? It already said that, but apparently not clearly enough. I installed the second attached patch to try to make things clearer. > this doc should probably also mention that the numerical value of > a marker is an integer It already says "Many of the functions described in this chapter accept markers for arguments in place of numbers.... When the argument value is a marker, its position value is used and its buffer is ignored." > if you compare an integer > against an integer numeral then you had better use > `eql', unless you know that both are fixnums No, it suffices if *either* is a fixnum. For example, (eq 0 FOO) tests whether FOO is the integer zero, and works regardless of whether FOO is a bignum. > I'm really surprised this doc got inserted as it is. I'm not surprised at all. The doc was an improvement over its predecessor, we're all busy doing other things, and the issues raised in this bug report are low priority. If you're still dissatisfied with the manual, I suggest proposing specific wording changes so that future fixes in this area can be accomplished more efficiently. --------------3CC4C11A0F12FEA602E14350 Content-Type: text/x-patch; charset=UTF-8; name="0001-Reorder-discussion-of-integer-basics.patch" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="0001-Reorder-discussion-of-integer-basics.patch" >From 290cfbedd75764ab863677f63f66db13ceb70598 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Eggert Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:36:50 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Reorder discussion of integer basics * doc/lispref/numbers.texi (Integer Basics): Put the fixnum/bignum discussion at the end of the section, not at the start (Bug#39557). --- doc/lispref/numbers.texi | 77 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/lispref/numbers.texi b/doc/lispref/numbers.texi index c8941eab73..4b9fdf2420 100644 --- a/doc/lispref/numbers.texi +++ b/doc/lispref/numbers.texi @@ -34,39 +34,6 @@ Numbers @node Integer Basics @section Integer Basics - Integers in Emacs Lisp are not limited to the machine word size. - - Under the hood, though, there are two kinds of integers: smaller -ones, called @dfn{fixnums}, and larger ones, called @dfn{bignums}. -Some functions in Emacs accept only fixnums. Also, while fixnums can -be compared for numeric equality with @code{eq}, bignums require -more-heavyweight equality predicates like @code{eql} and @code{=}. - - The range of values for bignums is limited by the amount of main -memory, by machine characteristics such as the size of the word used -to represent a bignum's exponent, and by the @code{integer-width} -variable. These limits are typically much more generous than the -limits for fixnums. A bignum is never numerically equal to a fixnum; -if Emacs computes an integer in fixnum range, it represents the -integer as a fixnum, not a bignum. - - The range of values for a fixnum depends on the machine. The -minimum range is @minus{}536,870,912 to 536,870,911 (30 bits; i.e., -@ifnottex -@minus{}2**29 -@end ifnottex -@tex -@math{-2^{29}} -@end tex -to -@ifnottex -2**29 @minus{} 1), -@end ifnottex -@tex -@math{2^{29}-1}), -@end tex -but many machines provide a wider range. - The Lisp reader reads an integer as a nonempty sequence of decimal digits with optional initial sign and optional final period. @@ -145,6 +112,46 @@ Integer Basics give these arguments the name @var{number-or-marker}. When the argument value is a marker, its position value is used and its buffer is ignored. + In Emacs Lisp, text characters are represented by integers. Any +integer between zero and the value of @code{(max-char)}, inclusive, is +considered to be valid as a character. @xref{Character Codes}. + + Integers in Emacs Lisp are not limited to the machine word size. +Under the hood, though, there are two kinds of integers: smaller ones, +called @dfn{fixnums}, and larger ones, called @dfn{bignums}. Although +Emacs Lisp code ordinarily should not depend on whether an integer is +a fixnum or a bignum, older Emacs versions support only fixnums, some +functions in Emacs still accept only fixnums, and older Emacs Lisp +code may have trouble when given bignums. For example, while older +Emacs Lisp code could safely compare integers for numeric equality +with @code{eq}, the presence of bignums means that equality predicates +like @code{eql} and @code{=} should now be used to compare integers. + + The range of values for bignums is limited by the amount of main +memory, by machine characteristics such as the size of the word used +to represent a bignum's exponent, and by the @code{integer-width} +variable. These limits are typically much more generous than the +limits for fixnums. A bignum is never numerically equal to a fixnum; +if Emacs computes an integer in fixnum range, it represents the +integer as a fixnum, not a bignum. + + The range of values for a fixnum depends on the machine. The +minimum range is @minus{}536,870,912 to 536,870,911 (30 bits; i.e., +@ifnottex +@minus{}2**29 +@end ifnottex +@tex +@math{-2^{29}} +@end tex +to +@ifnottex +2**29 @minus{} 1), +@end ifnottex +@tex +@math{2^{29}-1}), +@end tex +but many machines provide a wider range. + @cindex largest fixnum @cindex maximum fixnum @defvar most-positive-fixnum @@ -207,10 +214,6 @@ Integer Basics creates huge integers. @end defvar - In Emacs Lisp, text characters are represented by integers. Any -integer between zero and the value of @code{(max-char)}, inclusive, is -considered to be valid as a character. @xref{Character Codes}. - @node Float Basics @section Floating-Point Basics -- 2.17.1 --------------3CC4C11A0F12FEA602E14350 Content-Type: text/x-patch; charset=UTF-8; name="0002-Clarify-when-fixnums-are-used.patch" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="0002-Clarify-when-fixnums-are-used.patch" >From 8593d449972ad2bac850c03839653223d402a682 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Eggert Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:54:07 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Clarify when fixnums are used. * doc/lispref/numbers.texi (Integer Basics): Clarify. Based on a suggestion by Noam Postavsky (Bug#39557#32). --- doc/lispref/numbers.texi | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/lispref/numbers.texi b/doc/lispref/numbers.texi index 4b9fdf2420..4002b36ce5 100644 --- a/doc/lispref/numbers.texi +++ b/doc/lispref/numbers.texi @@ -132,8 +132,8 @@ Integer Basics to represent a bignum's exponent, and by the @code{integer-width} variable. These limits are typically much more generous than the limits for fixnums. A bignum is never numerically equal to a fixnum; -if Emacs computes an integer in fixnum range, it represents the -integer as a fixnum, not a bignum. +Emacs always represents an integer in fixnum range as a fixnum, not a +bignum. The range of values for a fixnum depends on the machine. The minimum range is @minus{}536,870,912 to 536,870,911 (30 bits; i.e., -- 2.17.1 --------------3CC4C11A0F12FEA602E14350-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Feb 17 18:20:21 2020 Received: (at 39557) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Feb 2020 23:20:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39353 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j3pgb-00081i-BZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 18:20:21 -0500 Received: from userp2130.oracle.com ([156.151.31.86]:53084) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j3pgY-00081U-P5 for 39557@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 18:20:20 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (userp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01HNIueT142586; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 23:20:03 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=5kixXwP+EfmLr+/3nh/K5EfT78UafLhI9z+6dTSIR48=; b=qWubXMe6qJsICL48NAmj5EFdKR2yHCIz0cwGg0C3Ock6QNaRGlXauetbVUo+AsihACRH n4aaBcM8Jn97P3o67KCjnxmh+L+63YGKHsFR2WTAeUWOWAfQVWcMbrWp3EXpx1jaJq1M Vm4Y5OYX6oOoT4MSUiqnanbAlOWKnHhQ0MltVg6dUsNocduMRIU6HvNj/Fp4WghfhLmv 3BLHnw1Av0N8UFEFwPn1a/3pFD6LK2O3z7A94Jm75yuza8EnBcY1lDxJ5aPiikja9OTB WXNExNGkejddiWszZJy5bcYDnbTQE/DXjJF7fv7bxBMv9BeIOT1wdmXOx/3Xt+S56ZSp WA== Received: from aserp3020.oracle.com (aserp3020.oracle.com [141.146.126.70]) by userp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y7aq5ng37-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 17 Feb 2020 23:20:02 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01HNJOQ6098510; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 23:20:02 GMT Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by aserp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y6temdqg5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 17 Feb 2020 23:20:02 +0000 Received: from abhmp0009.oracle.com (abhmp0009.oracle.com [141.146.116.15]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 01HNJt0O028894; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 23:19:55 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <216cb392-3b01-466d-8fa2-eabcba3283cd@default> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:19:54 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: Paul Eggert Subject: RE: 27.0.60; Elisp manual, doc about bignums References: <8c6ed478-db97-8abc-de79-f5c10498ad0c@cs.ucla.edu> In-Reply-To: <8c6ed478-db97-8abc-de79-f5c10498ad0c@cs.ucla.edu> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4954.0 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9534 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002170191 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9534 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002170191 X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 39557 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Noam Postavsky , 39557@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: -3.3 (---) Thanks for working on this. > > That's really the _last_ thing we should tell users, not the first. >=20 > I installed the first attached patch to move the distinction between fixn= ums > and > bignums to the end of the section. Thanks. > > Shouldn't it tell you that you get a fixnum whenever the value > > is within the fixnum range (if that's in fact the case)? >=20 > It already said that, but apparently not clearly enough. I installed the > second > attached patch to try to make things clearer. Thanks. > > this doc should probably also mention that the numerical value of > > a marker is an integer ^^^^^^^ > It already says "Many of the functions described in this chapter accept > markers for arguments in place of numbers.... When the argument value > is a marker, its position value is used and its buffer is ignored." Not really the same thing. Nothing there says that a marker position is an integer (fixnum or bignum), and not some other kind of number. Sure, many readers will know (but not from here) that buffer positions are integers. And they can guess that marker positions are buffer positions, hence integers... But it's not hard to tell them that the numerical value of a marker is an integer. (This isn't a big deal. I said "should probably also mention". I could have said "maybe". Just a suggestion.) > > if you compare an integer > > against an integer numeral then you had better use > > `eql', unless you know that both are fixnums >=20 > No, it suffices if *either* is a fixnum. For example, (eq 0 FOO) tests > whether > FOO is the integer zero, and works regardless of whether FOO is a bignum. I see. Then please say that. As for the proposed changes - If we're going to talk about "older" code then we should specify older than what. I don't think there should be any need to talk about older code or say "should now". The general rule's simple: use `eql' - worked before, works now. If some code uses `eq', it couldn't possibly have worked before with two integers big enough to now be bignums, right? Any code - old or new - that uses `eq' to compare integers needs to know that at least one of the operands is a fixnum. We should just say that you can use `eql' to compare any integers, and add that you can't use `eq' to compare integers if they're both bignums. How complicated is that? Emphasize `=3D' and `eql'. `eq' should just be a footnote. That's my suggestion. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Feb 17 18:53:10 2020 Received: (at 39557) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Feb 2020 23:53:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39362 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j3qCM-0000KR-3B for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 18:53:10 -0500 Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:33114) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j3qCI-0000K8-V6 for 39557@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 18:53:07 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC26160091; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:53:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id 2yOgorlhwsbI; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:53:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E9DB160093; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:53:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id NvF6sG9s6GpZ; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:53:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.9] (cpe-23-242-74-103.socal.res.rr.com [23.242.74.103]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 41E5A160091; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:53:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: 27.0.60; Elisp manual, doc about bignums To: Drew Adams References: <8c6ed478-db97-8abc-de79-f5c10498ad0c@cs.ucla.edu> <216cb392-3b01-466d-8fa2-eabcba3283cd@default> From: Paul Eggert Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <8deb3c37-79a4-b10f-87ed-6265dedb07d7@cs.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:52:56 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <216cb392-3b01-466d-8fa2-eabcba3283cd@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 39557 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Noam Postavsky , 39557@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: -3.3 (---) On 2/17/20 3:19 PM, Drew Adams wrote: >>> this doc should probably also mention that the numerical value of >>> a marker is an integer > ^^^^^^^ >> It already says "Many of the functions described in this chapter accept >> markers for arguments in place of numbers.... When the argument value >> is a marker, its position value is used and its buffer is ignored." > > Not really the same thing. Nothing there says that > a marker position is an integer (fixnum or bignum), > and not some other kind of number. That's clear from context. This section is titled "Integer Basics" and it's all about integers. Personally I'd even trim some text from the above quote, as it's not basic to integers. I would rather not make that text longer or trickier. >>> if you compare an integer >>> against an integer numeral then you had better use >>> `eql', unless you know that both are fixnums >> >> No, it suffices if *either* is a fixnum. For example, (eq 0 FOO) tests >> whether >> FOO is the integer zero, and works regardless of whether FOO is a bignum. > > I see. Then please say that. I'd rather not. Again, this section is "Integer Basics" and the reference manual should not bog itself down various possible ways to use integers in programs (there are too many ways). > If we're going to talk about "older" code then > we should specify older than what. I originally wrote "older than Emacs 27" but trimmed it as being nonessential before installing the patch. It's not a big deal either way. > I don't > think there should be any need to talk about > older code or say "should now". This bug report assumed that Emacs is basically like Common Lisp in this area. However, Emacs is not there yet (though we've made progress), and it's better if the documentation reflects that fact rather than pretending there's no difference from Common Lisp. > Any code - > old or new - that uses `eq' to compare > integers needs to know that at least one of > the operands is a fixnum. It's sometimes OK to use eq even when both arguments are bignums. It depends on the circumstances. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Feb 17 20:53:01 2020 Received: (at 39557) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Feb 2020 01:53:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39410 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j3s4K-0005JK-MU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 20:53:00 -0500 Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:51002) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j3s4I-0005J7-Ht for 39557@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 20:52:59 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (userp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01I1jUdE139072; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 01:52:45 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=CWRMUHvXpYPi7zV+SQGnmdsk3dVmqGbVmoDvkg/N7Lw=; b=jBQjDYUgGrd1zTUqKnsaJ4D4GpbQNZ1qarzSfSMOoPBsQmb5BWUo4z2CaF091SEqi9hU 1Kn3+DkKKROXcWKYMJavsUCXgK5ILR4eqjaC1dhEs0tTuA5Kf19BmQpvi3fp5poZUS4Z h99MIXA8k7qEZaV0+Qu525Xcz8f6w7a5B1WEPw0n1BnlxfY8v/AbLyWrQ0XVlQRXcnpu 3EcU+CR2h2F9B2GSYvLOA9DNj4JV6zsmNW87RZlqAkounA2WkkTEP4X5/jV3ne4A5KIQ YWygswHu9u2S17AS8PYLbmD5VF1EPV0e5gFnYRza1rqy7KzpCXfUHcFzvSuzmuQMYBIK 9g== Received: from aserp3020.oracle.com (aserp3020.oracle.com [141.146.126.70]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y699rjksj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 18 Feb 2020 01:52:44 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01I1pmIG036149; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 01:52:44 GMT Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by aserp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y6ten0yne-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 18 Feb 2020 01:52:43 +0000 Received: from abhmp0009.oracle.com (abhmp0009.oracle.com [141.146.116.15]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 01I1qgwp011924; Tue, 18 Feb 2020 01:52:42 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <9da8663c-083e-4d3f-a706-26744feac1f0@default> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 17:52:41 -0800 (PST) From: Drew Adams To: Paul Eggert Subject: RE: 27.0.60; Elisp manual, doc about bignums References: <8c6ed478-db97-8abc-de79-f5c10498ad0c@cs.ucla.edu> <216cb392-3b01-466d-8fa2-eabcba3283cd@default> <8deb3c37-79a4-b10f-87ed-6265dedb07d7@cs.ucla.edu> In-Reply-To: <8deb3c37-79a4-b10f-87ed-6265dedb07d7@cs.ucla.edu> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4954.0 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9534 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=996 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002180012 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9534 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002180011 X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 39557 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Noam Postavsky , 39557@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: -3.3 (---) > >> No, it suffices if *either* is a fixnum. For example, (eq 0 FOO) tests > >> whether > >> FOO is the integer zero, and works regardless of whether FOO is a bign= um. > > > > I see. Then please say that. >=20 > I'd rather not. Again, this section is "Integer Basics" and the reference > manual > should not bog itself down various possible ways to use integers in progr= ams > (there are too many ways). Then remove all mention of `eq', if you don't specify how it behaves with bignums. > > If we're going to talk about "older" code then > > we should specify older than what. >=20 > I originally wrote "older than Emacs 27" but trimmed it as being > nonessential > before installing the patch. It's not a big deal either way. If it means nothing to say "older code" then remove it altogether. The hand waving just confuses. > > I don't > > think there should be any need to talk about > > older code or say "should now". >=20 > This bug report assumed that Emacs is basically like Common Lisp in this > area. No, it doesn't. Whatever Emacs Lisp users need to know about integers is what they should be told. If they need to be told something about `eq' then tell that. > However, Emacs is not there yet (though we've made progress), and it's > better if > the documentation reflects that fact rather than pretending there's no > difference from Common Lisp. AFAIK, I didn't say anything that contradicts that. I'd never suggest that Emacs Lisp doc pretend that Emacs Lisp is the same as Common Lisp where it's not. I mentioned CL because its doc is clear wrt the use of `eql' for numbers. If the Emacs doc can't say the same thing, that's fine; it should say what it needs to say, to make clear its own behavior. It shouldn't waffle or confuse users. > > Any code - > > old or new - that uses `eq' to compare > > integers needs to know that at least one of > > the operands is a fixnum. >=20 > It's sometimes OK to use eq even when both arguments are bignums. It depe= nds > on the circumstances. Either it's important to say how `eq' behaves with bignums or it's not. =20 If it is, then users deserve the straight info. If it's not, why talk about `eq' at all? In that case, why not just tell users to compare integers using `eql' or `=3D'? You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too. You seem to want to talk about `eq' in the context of integers, but you apparently don't want to say how it behaves. I don't see how that helps users. My suggestion is to either (1) really say what the deal is with `eq' wrt integers (but not as the first thing we say about integers - you've already moved it, which is good) or (2) say nothing about it, other than to recommend against using it and for using `eql'. Figure out what the real message is for users, about using `eq' with integers - what they should be told. Then communicate it. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Feb 17 22:13:56 2020 Received: (at 39557) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Feb 2020 03:13:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39426 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j3tKe-0007JD-MB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 22:13:56 -0500 Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:55224) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j3tKc-0007Ix-Lp for 39557@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 22:13:55 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15554160093; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 19:13:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id tylKcSbr9pAT; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 19:13:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61EB31600A2; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 19:13:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id MHpzRSBqU8i2; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 19:13:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.9] (cpe-23-242-74-103.socal.res.rr.com [23.242.74.103]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 36337160091; Mon, 17 Feb 2020 19:13:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: 27.0.60; Elisp manual, doc about bignums To: Drew Adams References: <8c6ed478-db97-8abc-de79-f5c10498ad0c@cs.ucla.edu> <216cb392-3b01-466d-8fa2-eabcba3283cd@default> <8deb3c37-79a4-b10f-87ed-6265dedb07d7@cs.ucla.edu> <9da8663c-083e-4d3f-a706-26744feac1f0@default> From: Paul Eggert Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 19:13:47 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9da8663c-083e-4d3f-a706-26744feac1f0@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 39557 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Noam Postavsky , 39557@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: -3.3 (---) On 2/17/20 5:52 PM, Drew Adams wrote: > You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat > it too. I think we're done here. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 25 07:18:56 2020 Received: (at 39557) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Sep 2020 11:18:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42857 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kLlke-0001KB-KX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:18:56 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:38916) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kLlkd-0001Jx-7k for 39557@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:18:56 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=T/pY5PjjFGMExttHHTmeKr7GW6W0pmU8ozXcvUgc5ZU=; b=UNwTckJnySPIdoKJ6l3vYivUu7 HRlmscy7f63GyKd7M/omg6iP7VBLje1TafzmL9/R3546NJ0+IGWw7+9ibj3fXoYet2L3Qqj8tlFJQ oOQ0KHwezynQGfyOhbFaIBekuH7R35DqWTJwXzzKG1SDqzWO/IjkRTtbl0uSv0aAk7JY=; Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=xo) by quimby with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kLlkQ-0001at-VX; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 13:18:48 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Paul Eggert Subject: Re: bug#39557: 27.0.60; Elisp manual, doc about bignums References: <8c6ed478-db97-8abc-de79-f5c10498ad0c@cs.ucla.edu> <216cb392-3b01-466d-8fa2-eabcba3283cd@default> <8deb3c37-79a4-b10f-87ed-6265dedb07d7@cs.ucla.edu> <9da8663c-083e-4d3f-a706-26744feac1f0@default> X-Now-Playing: Thievery Corporation's _The Mirror Conspiracy_: "The Mirror Conspiracy" Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 13:18:41 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Paul Eggert's message of "Mon, 17 Feb 2020 19:13:47 -0800") Message-ID: <87h7rmqf3i.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Paul Eggert writes: > I think we're done here. I think so, too, so I'm closing this bug report. Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 39557 Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Noam Postavsky , Drew Adams , 39557@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: -1.0 (-) Paul Eggert writes: > I think we're done here. I think so, too, so I'm closing this bug report. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 25 07:19:04 2020 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Sep 2020 11:19:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42861 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kLlkl-0001Kx-VH for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:19:04 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]:38936) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kLlkk-0001KI-7f for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:19:02 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Subject:From:To:Message-Id:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=QQwgUF6jMD+Xt2qlj01JzNGF7HGmyzQkSSpeKWg47ck=; b=hLbT5rjgIkIDssf1yuKnhSwg5g /69TqS8EedT+TLdc8s9qc8hTO8IYDY5yfhnZXTtgYcVabQfPEJwLleb1VS9RuLIfji9m5AZ9asSE8 ADqk/rD2pwdY4MsONCB7GQFgGngJg+c57hQAG+w/c7B4E5ziYFgqfzVHlmPzgcnqkLIA=; Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=xo) by quimby with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kLlkc-0001b1-Ku for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 13:18:56 +0200 Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 13:18:53 +0200 Message-Id: <87ft76qf36.fsf@gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #39557 X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: close 39557 quit Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control 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: -1.0 (-) close 39557 quit From unknown Fri Jun 20 07:15:01 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 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