GNU bug report logs -
#78844
30.1; feature request: public interface for querying builtin packages and versions
Previous Next
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>>> FWIW, I'd consider it an error if an entry in
>>> `package--builtin-versions` has a nil "version".
>>> There are no such things as "unversioned packages" in this respect.
>>> So, I think the code is OK but the docstring should not mention that
>>> we return nil for packages without a version.
>>
>> I think in principle you are correct given that the current public
>> functions don't provide a way to obtain such a symbol. But it's
>> possible that someone can construct a symbol, either by hand or through
>> a new interface that queries all builtin packages, which is in
>> `package--builtins' but not in `package--builtin-versions', and the
>> function will return nil. Do you think it's worth keeping such
>> possibility into consideration?
>
> Returning nil for packages (aka symbols) which aren't in
> `package--builtin-versions` is fine and I have no objection to
> documenting it.
>
> My objection is to
>
> if @var{package} does not have a version
>
> but not to
>
> if @var{package} ... is not a buil-tin package
>
I see. Though technically people can get a package symbol from
`package--builtins', and hence built-in, but not in
`package--builtin-versions', and hence does not have a version
associated. Maybe I can be more explicit to say "if @var{package} is
built-in but does not have a version ..."? (Revised as such.)
> [ BTW, note the typo above. ]
Thanks for spotting. Also fixed.
>
>
> Stefan
>
--
Regards,
Xiyue Deng
[0001-Add-public-interfaces-for-accessing-builtin-package-.patch (text/x-diff, attachment)]
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
This bug report was last modified 27 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.