Subject: Re: bug#62698: bind:utils

From: Brian Cully <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 May 2023 12:58:33 -0400

Maxim Cournoyer <[email-masked]> writes:

> Thanks for finding the problem.  Should we leave this bug open 
> until
> specification->package+output is properly documented in our 
> manual, with
> an example?  If yes, would you like to try your hand at adding 
> it?

I've looked at this briefly, and can't figure out a good place to 
document this (I'm also not particularly good with TexInfo).

I'm okay with closing the bug. Though I will say that I think this 
procedure is a bit of a foot-gun. Multiple value returns are 
always kind of weird, and in this particular case I don't see the 
value at all; the only reason to use 
‘specification->package+output’ would be to get both the package 
and the output, so the minor advantages of multi-value returns are 
obviated. On top of that, does this even get used outside of 
system/home definitions? And in those places you always want a 
list.

I realize a lot of code uses the current semantics, so changing 
them would be extremely difficult at this late stage. It's worth 
thinking about adding another procedure that does the expected 
thing (returning a list of package and output), IMHO, and 
transitioning over to that.

-bjc