* bug#7545: 24.0.50; (elisp) `Simple Types'
@ 2010-12-03 18:10 Drew Adams
2011-07-02 13:50 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Drew Adams @ 2010-12-03 18:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 7545
Why are types `alist' and `plist' considered simple types? Seems like
they are like `cons', `repeat', and `list', not like `string' and
`symbol'. They are structures with component types. Don't they belong
in node `Composite Types'?
In GNU Emacs 24.0.50.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600)
of 2010-11-30 on 3249CTO
Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600
configured using `configure --with-gcc (4.4) --no-opt --cflags
-Ic:/imagesupport/include'
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* bug#7545: 24.0.50; (elisp) `Simple Types'
2010-12-03 18:10 bug#7545: 24.0.50; (elisp) `Simple Types' Drew Adams
@ 2011-07-02 13:50 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2011-07-02 13:57 ` Deniz Dogan
2011-07-03 0:47 ` Chong Yidong
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen @ 2011-07-02 13:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Drew Adams; +Cc: 7545
"Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:
> Why are types `alist' and `plist' considered simple types? Seems like
> they are like `cons', `repeat', and `list', not like `string' and
> `symbol'. They are structures with component types. Don't they belong
> in node `Composite Types'?
That seems logical. But this report was marked as "notabug", but
doesn't show how it got that mark. Anybody know what that means?
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* bug#7545: 24.0.50; (elisp) `Simple Types'
2011-07-02 13:50 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
@ 2011-07-02 13:57 ` Deniz Dogan
2011-07-02 15:26 ` Drew Adams
2011-07-03 0:47 ` Chong Yidong
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Deniz Dogan @ 2011-07-02 13:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen; +Cc: 7545
On 2011-07-02 15:50, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> "Drew Adams"<drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:
>
>> Why are types `alist' and `plist' considered simple types? Seems like
>> they are like `cons', `repeat', and `list', not like `string' and
>> `symbol'. They are structures with component types. Don't they belong
>> in node `Composite Types'?
>
> That seems logical. But this report was marked as "notabug", but
> doesn't show how it got that mark. Anybody know what that means?
>
It could mean that someone (I don't remember who has access) changed it
straight in the database. This has happened to one of my bug reports
before.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* bug#7545: 24.0.50; (elisp) `Simple Types'
2011-07-02 13:57 ` Deniz Dogan
@ 2011-07-02 15:26 ` Drew Adams
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Drew Adams @ 2011-07-02 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Deniz Dogan', 'Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen'; +Cc: 7545
> > That seems logical. But this report was marked as "notabug", but
> > doesn't show how it got that mark. Anybody know what that means?
>
> It could mean that someone (I don't remember who has access)
> changed it
> straight in the database. This has happened to one of my bug reports
> before.
FWIW - I (the bug filer) received no mail about this bug's status. Nothing
saying that it was classified as "notabug", or anything else for that matter.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* bug#7545: 24.0.50; (elisp) `Simple Types'
2011-07-02 13:50 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2011-07-02 13:57 ` Deniz Dogan
@ 2011-07-03 0:47 ` Chong Yidong
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Chong Yidong @ 2011-07-03 0:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen; +Cc: 7545
Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
> "Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:
>
>> Why are types `alist' and `plist' considered simple types? Seems like
>> they are like `cons', `repeat', and `list', not like `string' and
>> `symbol'. They are structures with component types. Don't they belong
>> in node `Composite Types'?
>
> That seems logical.
It's a corner case, since alist and plist can have omitted arguments, so
it is not necessary to specify the composite elements like the other
composite types. But I don't mind moving the rather long descriptions
to Composite Types node. Changed in the emacs-23 branch.
> But this report was marked as "notabug", but doesn't show how it got
> that mark.
No idea; operator error maybe.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-07-03 0:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-12-03 18:10 bug#7545: 24.0.50; (elisp) `Simple Types' Drew Adams
2011-07-02 13:50 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2011-07-02 13:57 ` Deniz Dogan
2011-07-02 15:26 ` Drew Adams
2011-07-03 0:47 ` Chong Yidong
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).