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

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Kevin Vigouroux <ke.vigouroux <at> laposte.net>

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 20:40:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: patch

Done: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #363 received at 40671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
To: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>, Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>,
 Mattias EngdegÄrd <mattiase <at> acm.org>, 40671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>, ke.vigouroux <at> laposte.net
Subject: Re: bug#40671: [DOC] modify literal objects
Date: Sun, 3 May 2020 00:40:44 -0700
On 5/2/20 6:30 PM, Dmitry Gutov wrote:

> I'm making a semantic point: these values are special because they are at the
> other end of a certain set of "constant references". Not because they have any
> other property themselves, like being immutable.

I don't see why this semantic point makes a difference to the user. Regardless
of whether the objects are targets of "constant references" (whatever that
means), programs should not modify the objects in question. And if the semantic
point makes no practical difference, why complicate the manual with it?

It's simpler just to say: programs shouldn't modify these objects.

> The "whole story" can be enumerated in some place, sure. Self-evaluating forms
> seem to be the most important area to cover, though.

They're not the only thing to cover, and attempting to shoehorn this all into
self-evaluating forms could even be misleading.




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.