Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> Thanks, some comments:

Thanks for commenting, as always.

Please find attached an updated patch that should fix all your comments.

> Do we really need the power of seq.el here? wouldn't mapcar do the job
> nicely, since we have a simple list here?  OTOH, if you do use seq.el,
> why seq-filter and not seq-remove?

I think mapcar won't work since the returned list is the same length as
its input.  seq-remove seems better indeed.

> This test will fail when we remove the obsolete option, right?  How
> can we come up with a test that doesn't suffer from such maintenance
> problems?

This option is only defined in this file for testing purposes, and
should never be removed.  I've clarified this in its docstring and added
a high version number.