From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Philipp Stephani
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs
Subject: bug#43557: 28.0.50;
Please document which objects are mutable and which are not
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2020 16:54:37 +0100
Message-ID:
References: <87mu0nv6y6.fsf@gnus.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214";
logging-data="3797"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io"
Cc: 43557@debbugs.gnu.org
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen
Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 31 16:55:15 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 1kYtDn-0000tx-KD
for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 16:55:15 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57352 helo=lists1p.gnu.org)
by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
(envelope-from )
id 1kYtDm-0006vT-H7
for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 11:55:14 -0400
Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43046)
by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from )
id 1kYtDa-0006vM-GR
for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 11:55:02 -0400
Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:51023)
by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128)
(Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from )
id 1kYtDa-0002Nr-7S
for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 11:55:02 -0400
Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from ) id 1kYtDa-0000oz-61
for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 11:55:02 -0400
X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org
Resent-From: Philipp Stephani
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit"
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
Resent-Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2020 15:55:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID:
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 43557
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
Original-Received: via spool by 43557-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B43557.16041596963140
(code B ref 43557); Sat, 31 Oct 2020 15:55:02 +0000
Original-Received: (at 43557) by debbugs.gnu.org; 31 Oct 2020 15:54:56 +0000
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34336 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from )
id 1kYtDU-0000oa-Fl
for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 11:54:56 -0400
Original-Received: from mail-ot1-f50.google.com ([209.85.210.50]:44553)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from ) id 1kYtDS-0000oN-Ji
for 43557@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 11:54:54 -0400
Original-Received: by mail-ot1-f50.google.com with SMTP id m26so8438828otk.11
for <43557@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 08:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=4dCiN5rXTM5XnYU71SSgUFKZon0PiPcatFUj3ERYuTg=;
b=eRYHQjy4w2T0QUU3juWAwuy0aVuVjVgPUfMcNh0Pd4jetqn3JEisFXa6YtEW5Xc2a5
aXOb4HTfQBaD5X6CUUI+n1UZ27tv1+A+Xj8SbISEkOmxlRdGTwdlG4TeNwZHK4Dk3hy/
LTAZgqv4rI9xG74tRW0JKf0Zfg7kbuLzqqDRl8Oik3MSFDU0AyFqkLW6cFik2XkcGcJK
gRR8SOUcXp10pCpOBjhe4bvzPyN61feBjfO7vziPfqAodSCi0Wwq/zgDYq9wPPOR11bQ
PQunPelurjhNJjxug1+UtxfEdc7qrlj+x1a5DeJ/DQtxdxfS3A5vZ+a36TXws14RMKSo
ZY1Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=4dCiN5rXTM5XnYU71SSgUFKZon0PiPcatFUj3ERYuTg=;
b=Oip6BTtOqjGK0vKqC04/aSM8i+Bg9KqBxOPtImNf33YBY3zip2yKsE0g6lkheRhLvX
OPaIMplwu7kYFKcxueXPFaQR2YkFC/APLDUvOmTxkGecueO98xpJXZM79xkJztsjiJa3
Rbf9Im8zj0OK5lozjT35XQCW0LEdJU9/URj5LayyxfoMB0ehJyo2Y2YRw2xHzJP/Z0J2
G1L/4OtLud1All/M0h9uqmt5prOVDa0ejaXBw4+lBdBBS9dg6VOIF+ZX3kcJcN541RXt
Bhox7jI8uuxhg3bXy8GbVSCBsJDGu0oUCnyMsAM7bxE5TvNXxMGGDhAbvTTAX25l+beb
31Mg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5335omOhecId0PfIvpxrMTt+B5uAyCJ6G/1CbbDPpyYXY0qZCvSC
6NzZwVYJYkTZzhA6pRm2Vtl2UUSjxfYA6o10v+A=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw+i+Lnv0TzCJidh97qpePMLcQTQnD3KtgBWFuvsMeY3u73umHNP6xeqM4IYRza9MS13z+Uclbzc0OZ8mIe5W4=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6e88:: with SMTP id a8mr5489532otr.174.1604159688818;
Sat, 31 Oct 2020 08:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <87mu0nv6y6.fsf@gnus.org>
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:192280
Archived-At:
Am Do., 15. Okt. 2020 um 17:34 Uhr schrieb Lars Ingebrigtsen :
>
> Philipp Stephani writes:
>
> > The "Mutability" section in the ELisp manual mentions that there are
> > mutable and immutable objects, but (besides giving a few examples)
> > doesn't document which objects are actually mutable. At the very least,
> > there should be a list of functions that are guaranteed to return
> > mutable objects, and a statement about the mutability of function return
> > values in general.
>
> Reading the section, it seems pretty clear to me, and outlines the cases
> where you can't assume mutability (even if the objects may appear to be
> mutable).
I disagree. "Pretty clear" would mean "allowing the reader to classify
each Lisp expression w.r.t. the mutability of its value", and as the
section only gives a few examples, it can't do that. What it should do
in addition is provide rules on how to classify any given Lisp
expression. Each possible Lisp expression has to fall into exactly one
of three categories:
- The value is mutable.
- The value is immutable.
- It is unspecified whether the value is mutable or immutable.
Given that we can't document this for every Lisp function in
existence, we need to pick some default, and document that default in
the manual. Also, we need to document the cases where the default
doesn't apply, either in the manual or in function docstrings.
I'm happy to add the necessary documentation, but for that we first
need a decision what the default is, and what the exceptions are.
>
> I'm not sure a list of mutable objects is a well-defined request, and
> there are very few functions that can promise to return a mutable
> object. (I mean, (list 1 2 immutable-list) is mutable, but can contain
> elements that aren't.)
Then the docstring of `list' and the ELisp manual should say that. The
difference between shallow and deep immutability might not be clear to
all readers, so it's important that it's documented as well.
>
> So I'm not sure whether what you're requesting is feasible.
It must be feasible, otherwise programming in ELisp becomes, strictly
speaking, impossible. Given code such as
(let ((var (some-list-returning-function ...))) ...)
it must be possible for programmers to derive whether (setcar var ...)
is allowed from some set of rules plus the docstring of the function.
This is not some theoretical problem: This bug was triggered by a code
review where the author and reviewer disagreed what could be assumed
about the mutability of the return value of arbitrary functions, so
fixing this bug has very practical consequences.