GNU bug report logs - #61730
30.0.50; Compiler warnings for delq and delete

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: mattias.engdegard <at> gmail.com, 61730 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
Subject: bug#61730: 30.0.50; Compiler warnings for delq and delete
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2023 17:45:30 +0100

Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
> > Even though my-list is never used again in the program?  How is this
> > better than "(setq _ ..."?
>
> This case is indeed a matter of personal style.
>
> If you modify some list and throw away the return value, the program is
> likely to refer to the place again, though, not necessarily in the same
> function.

Instead of "(setq _ ..." you could better use "(ignore ..." which would
also serve as a hint to the reader: "the return value is ignored
intentionally, this destructive operation is intended like it is in this
case".  That would not be bad style IMO.

Michael.

Previous Next

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