From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#42296: 27.0.91; Correct manual entry for 'concat' w.r.t. allocation [PATCH] Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 22:20:20 +0300 Message-ID: <83pn94pkaz.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83wo3cppc5.fsf@gnu.org> <669987BB-B825-4C2C-B9FD-31F04E0D6013@acm.org> <83r1tkplnc.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="28985"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 42296@debbugs.gnu.org To: mattiase@acm.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 09 21:21:10 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jtc6X-0007PX-Hr for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 21:21:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40972 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jtc6W-0002Rg-Jt for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 15:21:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53054) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jtc6Q-0002Ra-BN for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 15:21:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:58378) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jtc6Q-00065r-1v for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 15:21:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jtc6P-00048e-Uu for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 15:21:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 19:21:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 42296 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 42296-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B42296.159432244315864 (code B ref 42296); Thu, 09 Jul 2020 19:21:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 42296) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Jul 2020 19:20:43 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41691 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jtc67-00047o-Hd for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 15:20:43 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39020) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jtc64-00047a-Of for 42296@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 15:20:41 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:34430) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jtc5z-0005xx-H7; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 15:20:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4580 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jtc5y-0002s7-LW; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 15:20:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: <83r1tkplnc.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Thu, 09 Jul 2020 21:51:19 +0300) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:182875 Archived-At: > Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 21:51:19 +0300 > From: Eli Zaretskii > Cc: 42296@debbugs.gnu.org > > That's not really what I asked for. > > And how does mutability enter the picture? We could say something > about it (but then we'd have to be less terse), but that doesn't in > any way replace the need to say that in many cases the value will be a > new string, IMO. Here's what I had in mind: This function frequently, but not always, constructs a new string that is not @code{eq} to any existing string. Lisp programs should not rely on the result being a new string nor on it being @code{eq} to an existing string. When this function returns a string @code{eq] to another, changing the result will also change that other string; to avoid that, use @code{copy-sequence} on the result. WDYT?