From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Internationalize Emacs's messages (swahili) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2021 11:09:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <181c8a83-fe72-4642-a9da-6972310510a8@default> References: <87o8ivumn5.fsf@telefonica.net> <86sg7w39fh.fsf@163.com> <83pn30pku5.fsf@gnu.org> <86wnx8otoj.fsf@163.com> <834kkbp9vr.fsf@gnu.org> <87czyxuxw6.fsf@db48x.net> <87y2hlt82w.fsf@db48x.net> <87lfdlvsw4.fsf@logand.com> <83h7o8ncly.fsf@gnu.org> <87pn2wudab.fsf@db48x.net> <87mty0c3m1.fsf@gnus.org> <83czywnb86.fsf@gnu.org> <87im8ob707.fsf@gnus.org> <87eejcb6nx.fsf@gnus.org> <875z4ob5c9.fsf@gnus.org> <87a6u09nkq.fsf@gnus.org> <875z4o9jdg.fsf@gnus.org> <87r1nb8yoj.fsf@gnus.org> <892fac78-0457-41b4-a442-46d992ca6e23@default> <87czyo3dj1.fsf@logand.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="30266"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Tomas Hlavaty , Lars Ingebrigtsen , Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 01 20:10:27 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1kvPoh-0007ma-9l for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 01 Jan 2021 20:10:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39662 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kvPog-0006K6-BY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 01 Jan 2021 14:10:26 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37254) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kvPnb-0005qM-R9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jan 2021 14:09:19 -0500 Original-Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com ([141.146.126.78]:34736) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kvPnZ-0000Dp-Kq; Fri, 01 Jan 2021 14:09:19 -0500 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 101J4spu069128; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 19:09:11 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=85wrJE11KPijJrFEAtJecT7ptFwY5GJAH3OxoPd4vb4=; b=KnXLdwcaNhVMyi0ZykKPVOQs6Qg7vAFAKTTf3/yRUJ5orNxYaLiiO0VBauq3EgMANhDZ BrobpvdYgmAOm7bli6ovXHsWFYtu+IZofMIbhgkKdbmnFhQyCGgqSFZYxDpZA4fMJJRS TY76Rr65fj19xbkKag4F1DiyFaoPDivItkBBhu9Ct1N8rdGZbcMqGy63d5PUXfdUO7In dgAbUkBGEDqyifxRXkPvkmb8Z029vFSKiKgqWAVskqk8TYJF9rPD7XVZFybdStkQ9OGc c2hK9bLONWGQNZoixJu6o2yM4ntx0zC9pQRVHoTvNOAT0LfqilvrPEdQLn9XQDJ+fseY Vg== Original-Received: from aserp3030.oracle.com (aserp3030.oracle.com [141.146.126.71]) by aserp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 35phm1m2nh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 01 Jan 2021 19:09:11 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 101J6BQh114733; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 19:09:11 GMT Original-Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by aserp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 35perq7m4g-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 01 Jan 2021 19:09:11 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0002.oracle.com (abhmp0002.oracle.com [141.146.116.8]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 101J98Us002446; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 19:09:09 GMT In-Reply-To: <87czyo3dj1.fsf@logand.com> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.5095.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9851 signatures=668683 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=827 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2101010120 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9851 signatures=668683 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=848 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2101010120 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=141.146.126.78; envelope-from=drew.adams@oracle.com; helo=aserp2120.oracle.com X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:262261 Archived-At: > > The Lisp definitions I posted don't have these problems. They handle > > circular and dotted lists fine. For dotted lists, the length returned > > is always the same as what it would be for a proper list equal to the > > dotted list but with the last cdr wrapped in `list'. >=20 > The predicates are trying to fix cases where people use length. >=20 > (length '(1 2 . 3)) > =3D> > Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument listp 3) Yes. And? If we're defining predicates to check whether the length of a list is <, =3D, or > some value, those predicates should do something useful, or at least something one might expect, for non-proper lists as well, no? If you check `length<' for a dotted list, whether on purpose or not (e.g., knowing, not knowing or not caring whether the list is proper), would you really expect that a true/false value would be returned and sometimes an error would be raised? I think it's more useful for a reasonable value to always be returned for that. Or one could argue that an error should always be raised for that. But sometimes true/false and sometimes raise an error? Why would we choose a design like that?