GNU bug report logs - #7545
24.0.50; (elisp) `Simple Types'

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 7545 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 7545 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
Subject: 24.0.50; (elisp) `Simple Types'
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 10:10:08 -0800

Why are types `alist' and `plist' considered simple types?  Seems like
they are like `cons', `repeat', and `list', not like `string' and
`symbol'.  They are structures with component types.  Don't they belong
in node `Composite Types'?

In GNU Emacs 24.0.50.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
 of 2010-11-30 on 3249CTO
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
configured using `configure --with-gcc (4.4) --no-opt --cflags
-Ic:/imagesupport/include'
 

Message #8 received at 7545 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 7545 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#7545: 24.0.50; (elisp) `Simple Types'
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 15:50:47 +0200

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

> Why are types `alist' and `plist' considered simple types?  Seems like
> they are like `cons', `repeat', and `list', not like `string' and
> `symbol'.  They are structures with component types.  Don't they belong
> in node `Composite Types'?

That seems logical.  But this report was marked as "notabug", but
doesn't show how it got that mark.  Anybody know what that means?

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/

Message #11 received at 7545 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Deniz Dogan <deniz <at> dogan.se>
To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>, 7545 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#7545: 24.0.50; (elisp) `Simple Types'
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 15:57:38 +0200

On 2011-07-02 15:50, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> "Drew Adams"<drew.adams <at> oracle.com>  writes:
>
>> Why are types `alist' and `plist' considered simple types?  Seems like
>> they are like `cons', `repeat', and `list', not like `string' and
>> `symbol'.  They are structures with component types.  Don't they belong
>> in node `Composite Types'?
>
> That seems logical.  But this report was marked as "notabug", but
> doesn't show how it got that mark.  Anybody know what that means?
>

It could mean that someone (I don't remember who has access) changed it 
straight in the database.  This has happened to one of my bug reports 
before.

Message #14 received at 7545 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: "'Deniz Dogan'" <deniz <at> dogan.se>,
	"'Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen'" <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 7545 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#7545: 24.0.50; (elisp) `Simple Types'
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 08:26:37 -0700

> > That seems logical.  But this report was marked as "notabug", but
> > doesn't show how it got that mark.  Anybody know what that means?
> 
> It could mean that someone (I don't remember who has access) 
> changed it 
> straight in the database.  This has happened to one of my bug reports 
> before.

FWIW - I (the bug filer) received no mail about this bug's status.  Nothing
saying that it was classified as "notabug", or anything else for that matter.

Message #17 received at 7545 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Chong Yidong <cyd <at> stupidchicken.com>
To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>, 7545 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#7545: 24.0.50; (elisp) `Simple Types'
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 20:47:08 -0400

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> writes:

> "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com> writes:
>
>> Why are types `alist' and `plist' considered simple types?  Seems like
>> they are like `cons', `repeat', and `list', not like `string' and
>> `symbol'.  They are structures with component types.  Don't they belong
>> in node `Composite Types'?
>
> That seems logical.

It's a corner case, since alist and plist can have omitted arguments, so
it is not necessary to specify the composite elements like the other
composite types.  But I don't mind moving the rather long descriptions
to Composite Types node.  Changed in the emacs-23 branch.

> But this report was marked as "notabug", but doesn't show how it got
> that mark.

No idea; operator error maybe.

Previous Next

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