GNU bug report logs -
#40671
[DOC] modify literal objects
Previous Next
Full log
Message #294 received at 40671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 4/28/20 5:55 PM, Drew Adams wrote:
> You're _not_ using the language that's used for Common Lisp.
In what sense does the language differ? Here's a quote from CLtL2 (page 115):
"it is an error to destructively modify any object that appears as a constant
in executable code, whether within a 'quote' special form or as
a self-evaluating form."
This use of the word "constant" is consistent with what's in the emacs-27 doc.
> Elisp corresponds
> to the behavior of CLTL1 in this regard, not to any
> later update
Those older CLtL semantics were not well-defined, and to the extent that they
were defined were not followed by Common Lisp implementations. It's not clear
that the emacs-27 Elisp implementation corresponds to those older semantics, and
it's also not clear that documenting CLtL1 semantics would be a good idea for Elisp.
> A few mails ago, you wondered if the disagreement
> has been only about terminology. And the response
> was mostly "Yes" - objections to your use of
> "mutable" and "constant"/"immutable", and your use
> of "cannot" instead of "should not" (aka "Don't").
>
> You've since ignored that response, it seems.
I responded to those specific wording objections by removing the "immutable"s
and "cannots" that were objected to. At least, that was my intent; if I missed
something please let me know.
I admit I have not made changes in response to vaguer suggestions, but that's
partly because I don't really understand what's involved.
This bug report was last modified 5 years and 3 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.