* bug#37930: 26.3; Elisp manual: please remove index entry `seq library'
@ 2019-10-25 20:53 Drew Adams
2019-10-26 7:18 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Drew Adams @ 2019-10-25 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 37930
These are all of the index entries with "library" in them:
commentary, in a Lisp library
dynamic-library-alist
find library
image-load-path-for-library
library
library compilation
library header comments
library search
Lisp library
load-library
locate-library
seq library
`seq library' does not belong here. (Either that or entries also belong
for some or all of the umpteen other libraries provided in an Emacs
distribution.)
In GNU Emacs 26.3 (build 1, x86_64-w64-mingw32)
of 2019-08-29
Repository revision: 96dd0196c28bc36779584e47fffcca433c9309cd
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 10.0.17763
Configured using:
`configure --without-dbus --host=x86_64-w64-mingw32
--without-compress-install 'CFLAGS=-O2 -static -g3''
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* bug#37930: 26.3; Elisp manual: please remove index entry `seq library'
2019-10-25 20:53 Drew Adams
@ 2019-10-26 7:18 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2019-10-26 7:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Drew Adams; +Cc: 37930
tags 37930 wontfix
close 37930
thanks
> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 13:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
>
> commentary, in a Lisp library
> dynamic-library-alist
> find library
> image-load-path-for-library
> library
> library compilation
> library header comments
> library search
> Lisp library
> load-library
> locate-library
> seq library
>
> `seq library' does not belong here.
Disagree. You are assessing index entries from a completely wrong
angle.
> (Either that or entries also belong for some or all of the umpteen
> other libraries provided in an Emacs distribution.)
May I suggest to re-read the well-known quotation about consistency by
Ralph Waldo Emerson?
There's no need for consistency here.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* bug#37930: 26.3; Elisp manual: please remove index entry `seq library'
[not found] ` <<834kzwvutf.fsf@gnu.org>
@ 2019-10-26 15:00 ` Drew Adams
2019-10-26 15:12 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Drew Adams @ 2019-10-26 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii, Drew Adams; +Cc: 37930
> tags 37930 wontfix
> close 37930
>
> > commentary, in a Lisp library
> > dynamic-library-alist
> > find library
> > image-load-path-for-library
> > library
> > library compilation
> > library header comments
> > library search
> > Lisp library
> > load-library
> > locate-library
> > seq library
> >
> > `seq library' does not belong here.
>
> Disagree. You are assessing index entries from
> a completely wrong angle.
What angle is that?
You disagree that `seq library' doesn't belong.
Fair enough. Why do you think it belongs?
You didn't address the substance of the report:
lack of a reason why it should be present.
What's a good reason why it, alone among our
many libraries, should have an index entry of
that form?
That's what begs justifying. There's no need
to justify some imagined purist consistency.
There should be no special need for a reason
to remove it, if there's no reason to have it.
Maybe there's a good reason for entry `seq
library'. It's not obvious to me. If so,
please say what it is. I'd like to understand.
> > (Either that or entries also belong for
> > some or all of the umpteen other libraries
> > provided in an Emacs distribution.)
>
> May I suggest to re-read the well-known
> quotation about consistency by Ralph Waldo
> Emerson?
>
> There's no need for consistency here.
(Once again, BTW) no one has argued for blind
and systematic consistency. That's never a
requirement. And I'd be the last person to
argue for that.
Occam's razor: If there's no good reason to
add `seq library', why add it? If there's a
reason for it _then_ close the report (after
providing the reason, please).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* bug#37930: 26.3; Elisp manual: please remove index entry `seq library'
2019-10-26 15:00 ` bug#37930: 26.3; Elisp manual: please remove index entry `seq library' Drew Adams
@ 2019-10-26 15:12 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2019-10-26 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Drew Adams; +Cc: 37930
> Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 08:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> Cc: 37930@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> > > commentary, in a Lisp library
> > > dynamic-library-alist
> > > find library
> > > image-load-path-for-library
> > > library
> > > library compilation
> > > library header comments
> > > library search
> > > Lisp library
> > > load-library
> > > locate-library
> > > seq library
> > >
> > > `seq library' does not belong here.
> >
> > Disagree. You are assessing index entries from
> > a completely wrong angle.
>
> What angle is that?
That of consistency. As expressed by "doesn't belong".
> You disagree that `seq library' doesn't belong.
> Fair enough. Why do you think it belongs?
That's a wrong question, when talking about index entries. the
important question is "is it useful?"
> Maybe there's a good reason for entry `seq
> library'. It's not obvious to me.
Not obvious to you doesn't mean you should file a bug report, or that
we should continue discussing this.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* bug#37930: 26.3; Elisp manual: please remove index entry `seq library'
[not found] ` <<83sgnftuan.fsf@gnu.org>
@ 2019-10-26 15:55 ` Drew Adams
2019-10-26 16:10 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Drew Adams @ 2019-10-26 15:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii, Drew Adams; +Cc: 37930
> > > > `seq library' does not belong here.
> > >
> > > Disagree. You are assessing index entries from
> > > a completely wrong angle.
> >
> > What angle is that?
>
> That of consistency. As expressed by "doesn't belong".
>
> > You disagree that `seq library' doesn't belong.
> > Fair enough. Why do you think it belongs?
>
> That's a wrong question, when talking about index entries. the
> important question is "is it useful?"
Fair enough. Read it that way then, if you
want to quibble.
To me, it doesn't belong - it shouldn't be
present, because I don't see it as especially
useful. But I'll be glad to learn how it is.
You don't say why it's useful. In particular,
why is it more useful than an entry that could
be added for some other library? What's so
useful about this entry for this library?
> > Maybe there's a good reason for entry `seq
> > library'. It's not obvious to me.
>
> Not obvious to you doesn't mean you should file a bug report, or that
> we should continue discussing this.
I should file a bug report when I think it can
help improve Emacs. And that's what I do.
Please don't tell others when or whether they
_should_ file bug reports. You can close any
report that you don't think is helpful.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* bug#37930: 26.3; Elisp manual: please remove index entry `seq library'
2019-10-26 15:55 ` Drew Adams
@ 2019-10-26 16:10 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2019-10-26 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Drew Adams; +Cc: 37930
> Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 08:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> Cc: 37930@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> > > You disagree that `seq library' doesn't belong.
> > > Fair enough. Why do you think it belongs?
> >
> > That's a wrong question, when talking about index entries. the
> > important question is "is it useful?"
>
> Fair enough. Read it that way then, if you
> want to quibble.
"Quibble", thanks a lot.
> To me, it doesn't belong - it shouldn't be
> present, because I don't see it as especially
> useful. But I'll be glad to learn how it is.
How else do you get to functions from that library in the manual?
> > Not obvious to you doesn't mean you should file a bug report, or that
> > we should continue discussing this.
>
> I should file a bug report when I think it can
> help improve Emacs. And that's what I do.
>
> Please don't tell others when or whether they
> _should_ file bug reports.
Your bug report was considered and rejected. Why do you continue
arguing instead of accepting the decision? This is a recurring
pattern with you, and one that makes it so unnecessarily hard handling
your bug reports. People avoid responding to your bug reports because
of that. I myself sometimes avoid them. This is unnecessary, and
actually harms Emacs.
Please consider not arguing about decisions to close your bug reports.
> You can close any report that you don't think is helpful.
I already did. But it doesn't seem to help, not with bugs filed by
you.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-10-26 16:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <<5034f118-77b6-4f94-8d7b-2be7fd8f5195@default>
[not found] ` <<834kzwvutf.fsf@gnu.org>
2019-10-26 15:00 ` bug#37930: 26.3; Elisp manual: please remove index entry `seq library' Drew Adams
2019-10-26 15:12 ` Eli Zaretskii
[not found] <<<5034f118-77b6-4f94-8d7b-2be7fd8f5195@default>
[not found] ` <<<834kzwvutf.fsf@gnu.org>
[not found] ` <<80c877d4-178e-479b-bc12-048aefbb433f@default>
[not found] ` <<83sgnftuan.fsf@gnu.org>
2019-10-26 15:55 ` Drew Adams
2019-10-26 16:10 ` Eli Zaretskii
2019-10-25 20:53 Drew Adams
2019-10-26 7:18 ` Eli Zaretskii
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).