GNU bug report logs -
#40671
[DOC] modify literal objects
Previous Next
Full log
Message #303 received at 40671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu> writes:
> So again: anyone who wants to revert my recent doc changes to emacs-27
> is welcome to do so. Or, if you'd prefer to uniformly subsitute
> "literal object" for "constant"
I don't think "literal" covers all the cases you have in mind. I don't
have an idea for a name of the class of cases you have in mind, because
I would not subsume all examples you gave in one class at all. They
might be implementation- or memory-wise, but I don't think this is a good
perspective to describe a high-level language.
For example, the result of `symbol-name'. In my eyes, modifying the
result has a side effect (renaming the symbol, but in a way that is not
supported), and this side effect will have undesired consequences. But
that is true for other strings, too, that you would call mutable. It's
hard to draw a clear line here, unless you think (C-) implementation
wise.
For what you describe I would just say that under certain conditions
certain objects that are, in principle, mutable, should not be changed
in certain circumstances because of implementation details, here is a
list of such cases: ..., that's it.
I'm sorry that I also can't offer patches because I don't speak texinfo.
> It's really not worth arguing about, and I apologize for stirring up
> this hornet's nest.
I've never been called a hornet before.
Michael.
This bug report was last modified 5 years and 2 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.