From: "Andreas Röhler" <andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de>
To: 28736@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#28736: 24.5; doc of `push'
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 09:13:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bc8c642b-92a6-e214-be21-287cc4e1e367@easy-emacs.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b668e886-b07b-4ea1-98bf-c1c4a68b9df5@default>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1192 bytes --]
On 08.10.2017 21:40, Drew Adams wrote:
>>>>> why is it a problem to document this?
>>>> <Shrug> Because we don't want to guarantee the return
>>>> value won't change in the future?
>>> Are you sure?
>> No.
>>
>>> When was that decided?
>> I don't know if it was decided and when, I was just wondering
>> whether the lack of documentation is deliberate or an omission.
> Good. Neither do I know that we don't want to guarantee
> that the return value won't change. Nor do I know whether
> the lack of documentation was deliberate or not. Nor do I
> know a reason why we wouldn't want to document the behavior,
> guarantee or no guarantee.
>
> Not having any reason to think there was a deliberate
> decision not to document this, and not knowing any good
> reason why it should not be documented, whether it was
> deliberate or (a priori more likely) an oversight, and
> knowing good reasons why it _should_ be documented (it
> is useful, and documenting that use is the practice in
> Lisp in general, and it fits what we do for things like
> `setq'), this should be a no-brainer, IMO.
>
> But if there is a good reason why it should not be
> documented, let's hear it, please.
>
>
>
+1
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1984 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-09 7:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <<<<53afe0a4-8ce5-45fc-9e18-6bf52018c9b6@default>
[not found] ` <<<<83h8vatbtk.fsf@gnu.org>
[not found] ` <<<09655ed0-be2c-4453-9755-224ec733e221@default>
[not found] ` <<<83wp45sgrm.fsf@gnu.org>
[not found] ` <<9d23e7ad-ff25-4dac-b598-6614b272bebc@default>
[not found] ` <<83tvz9se2s.fsf@gnu.org>
2017-10-08 19:40 ` bug#28736: 24.5; doc of `push' Drew Adams
2017-10-09 7:13 ` Andreas Röhler [this message]
[not found] <<<53afe0a4-8ce5-45fc-9e18-6bf52018c9b6@default>
[not found] ` <<<83h8vatbtk.fsf@gnu.org>
[not found] ` <<09655ed0-be2c-4453-9755-224ec733e221@default>
[not found] ` <<83wp45sgrm.fsf@gnu.org>
2017-10-08 17:48 ` Drew Adams
2017-10-08 18:13 ` Eli Zaretskii
2021-09-25 15:41 ` Stefan Kangas
[not found] <<53afe0a4-8ce5-45fc-9e18-6bf52018c9b6@default>
[not found] ` <<83h8vatbtk.fsf@gnu.org>
2017-10-08 16:50 ` Drew Adams
2017-10-08 17:15 ` Eli Zaretskii
2017-10-08 2:56 Drew Adams
2017-10-08 6:04 ` Eli Zaretskii
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bc8c642b-92a6-e214-be21-287cc4e1e367@easy-emacs.de \
--to=andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de \
--cc=28736@debbugs.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).