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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #453 received at 40671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: ke.vigouroux <at> laposte.net, Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>,
 40671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>,
 Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>, Richard Stallman <rms <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#40671: [DOC] modify literal objects
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 04:56:16 +0200

Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com> writes:

> But are symbols otherwise constant, besides their
> values?  Depends what you mean by "symbol", perhaps.
> Certainly you can change not only `symbol-value' but
> also `symbol-function' and `symbol-plist'.  I don't
> see symbols as very constant.

Also makes sense, yes.

> I think that text wasn't too bad, but I see your point.
>
> And it's especially not good to use "value" in the two
> different senses, as (1) something you see ("appears")
> in a source program and (2) a runtime value that results
> from reading, byte-compiling, or interpreting that source
> code.
>
> Maybe "object" or "Lisp object" instead of "value", for
> #2?

The term "value" is used all over the place in the manual for #2, so
people are familiar with it, we need a better term for (1) instead I
think.  (info "(elisp) Equality Predicates") already uses the term
"literal object" btw:

     The Emacs Lisp byte compiler may collapse identical literal
     objects, such as literal strings, into references to the same
     object, with the effect that the byte-compiled code will compare
     such objects as ‘eq’, while the interpreted version of the same
     code will not.



Michael.

Previous Next

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