From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Michael Heerdegen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 14:44:39 +0200 Message-ID: <87ilxnuczs.fsf@web.de> References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> <87ee8cyt1m.fsf@web.de> <83bl3g55t5.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="31627"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org, stefan@marxist.se To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 23 14:45:51 2021 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 1meGPH-00084R-Jt for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 14:45:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46630 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1meGPG-00017X-Gf for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 08:45:50 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54630) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1meGOU-000176-S3 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 08:45:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:51321) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1meGOU-00049i-KW for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 08:45:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meGOU-0000NU-Eg for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 08:45:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Michael Heerdegen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 12:45:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org id=D17623.16349930901422 (code D ref 17623); Sat, 23 Oct 2021 12:45:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17623-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2021 12:44:50 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34634 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meGOI-0000Ms-Db for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 08:44:50 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.12]:46297) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meGOF-0000Mc-UN for 17623-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 08:44:49 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=web.de; s=dbaedf251592; t=1634993081; bh=QmufUlvdNFX8lhw9ehzYzr3e991dsU5agHgg3jRvPzI=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=LgcBMVR43gQVKhepEOjytUu1/HrRvg9Qg8sfTzp132zEwINQDzJS3+pdR/IcHPaUd nQVfqL3Wvzn7kiaUx855Nwrcjzrx5BBEtfLAHoZOuz3lXd5OCxoNurZ+yF+mmga3zI G3KEzG2Kp8Z0mxDx6qJ74uAGfjsWXQ2m2KHwTp6U= X-UI-Sender-Class: c548c8c5-30a9-4db5-a2e7-cb6cb037b8f9 Original-Received: from drachen.dragon ([92.208.225.87]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb101 [213.165.67.124]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MUFGo-1mEW3n0Lnm-00R3St; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 14:44:41 +0200 In-Reply-To: <83bl3g55t5.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 23 Oct 2021 14:39:02 +0300") X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:7SNT7PMIsfP5+bGRZactVlvOwO9wR5wq0CdzU2e7HlDqj8dLt66 DI2VDAIBdvo9QxU6/WtQPVFOvDQGgT1AP9WK29/nKenxHrFv+MlQgTzU58zqyIgSINpRNCc bIZrm2EDJbmjAyOmxjK0nX4rtrQXWSyX6vF3IqN89jO+u6caaK9/UGnwtH1ZHjstJGHperl 8iYqtCpuMYdOmZtC/xXgg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:7xpnDpn8FwM=:ZOmbmw8tM8jYzmNE/S61yh +iS71rqUgwmwzfjdN/Nr+YEFZH7vAHa3bHrlGRW8zVb84H81dbC5tXzmksanbTk2d/psH03Gt q98/Bv/Upl3FjIXMzntpR/VfxAdmhEBeI/4tqvMTZnlLPIV1FSZ7IVxymgc6LbbCmF0duXnHp voa1DcW4Y31IRDEX31nTH8GerFW6IaL8CKZe+BR2lVFSuVOonJE1hSY3AckTnwVciubwe/54c O3NLpBfFgZssxPOddO28VO2vmmJp1uTBlD6fNvRqxB/lSHr26z3ggQj+RcU2MaVpMHKAcfrEp KOerS8NeEeU9OTkYI/Is6XgblMBzDu0/Z4z6NdcaugVGnWbwcSJvVru7cAx+U0IF7NPlT+7/h t6FVXE90Wnp92IjU1Ne/YFbjDNZpY0KAm5KpqWM1+ElJXS8MlCWzJk/bPmQRBe6I8xW1KsWTd 8vCLdYC2PzUwUweLQEi7/kuRZVUObkddr6Us1DZ8ZZQc9BgiVsUXTs5xWGmS0rs1pTqqonSYd oXkdAw+VauZO80iQU+1xkmo9rdT/twTPj6qKK+Ukg94E7mRlywE3oJBuFguQS4LDwQ09X3uvx +nk24nkMiJRIlh11uzcra2VS2wMkbJYLriEkqcJdQnKsOrEVfBnWGoo6e5UkI7AiIHAspsTXA vfHiClKW69i7SgJt/TmMRCvczh4L4LDHeTWzTyK2jdGPZF8RhKH6+7EyBUeklMiktfG9qpQv/ oWGEdGymqokZVkM+P1nPlCv6T3gro2P3oZyHyz9tjs4888mJeTPl3TmPxEEE6Yr3dtcsADrl 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:217982 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > In what sense is that a contradiction? (+ 1 10) is equivalent to (1+ 10), > so we have N = 2 arguments in the original function and M = 1 = N - 1 in > the new one. No, N is described as the number of arguments the function accepts, not as the number of arguments in someone's example. So N = infinity, and M = N - 1 = infinity. But Emacs' `1+' accepts one argument. 1 /= infinity. Different functions. It is a detail, but given that the preceding paragraph explains the arity, and then we give an example that doesn't preserve arity, it's a detail with the potential of confusion. > > I'm a bit confused that you don't consider this a problem, and also that > > you said there were no concrete suggestions. > Why are you saying the suggestion is not being considered, whereas in > reality it was considered (and rejected)? I responded to "there were no suggestions" without reading everything of the thread. I had the impression that the bug had been closed in a rush. Maybe I was wrong. Stefan's explanation was confusing to me. > I cannot disagree more. That one line doesn't make anything clear, it > just shows the implementation. It does for me. We can't have both? > I object to deleting that. That text certainly helps me, so it cannot > be useless, let alone harmful. Why again was saying something like "note that unlike the built-in function this version accepts any number of arguments" rejected? Michael.