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

From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>,
 Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: ke.vigouroux <at> laposte.net, 40671 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [DOC] modify literal objects
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 14:02:42 -0700

On 4/19/20 9:59 AM, Mattias Engdegård wrote:
> What about we add a separate section about literals of all types, why they should be treated as immutable even though mutation currently isn't detected or disallowed at runtime, and recommended ways of coping with it (constructor functions, copy-sequence)? It would serve as a point of reference for all sections describing destructive operations.

In my recent patches to the emacs-27 branch I added a section "Constants and 
Mutability" that discusses many of these issues. It's a fundamental topic so I 
put the new section into doc/lispref/objects.texi, and cross-referenced it from 
the destructive-operation sections.

I didn't think of recommending ways of coping with it, and that's a good 
suggestion. I'm not sure that the coping-mechanism discussion belongs in 
objects.texi, though, as it's pragmatic rather than fundamental.

>  There is also a need for some cautionary text in the backquote section.

Yes, my recent patches added a brief note there.

> I'd volunteer to write it all but won't do the work just to have it shot down on general principles.

I know the feeling.
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.