GNU bug report logs - #40671
[DOC] modify literal objects

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
To: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>, Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>, Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>, ke.vigouroux <at> laposte.net, 40671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#40671: [DOC] modify literal objects
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 19:21:17 -0700

On 4/24/20 9:46 AM, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
> On 24.04.2020 19:39, Mattias Engdegård wrote:
>> That is an interesting point. What is the difference between CANNOT and SHOULD
>> NOT, operationally? To the user, nothing; there is no gain from disobeying our
>> advice.
> 
> The difference is at runtime, obviously. And the problem is using the words in a
> way that differs from other programming languages, for instance.

That depends on what other programming languages we're talking about. The
current use of 'constant' in the manual corresponds reasonably closely to
'const' objects in C and C++.

>> It's useful to have the option to add strong checks, so that (setcar '(1 . 2)
>> 3) throws an error. Then, what used to be SHOULD NOT turns into CANNOT, but
>> the attentive user has no reason to change behaviour.
> 
> *If* we do that, we could call them constants. But I imagine we never will, for
> backward compatibility reasons. Emacs core itself modifies these "constants" at
> runtime in quite a few places, I'm sure.

Actually Emacs formerly was more careful about this sort of thing: more objects
were constant and Emacs reliably signaled an error if you tried to change them.
If we brought back this feature we'd actually be more backwards-compatible than
we already are, at least in some sense. I expect it'd be a good thing to do if
it didn't hurt performance, as it should help reliability/safety a bit.

Previous Next

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