From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Excessive use of `eassert` Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 21:56:10 +0200 Message-ID: <83frytumg5.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83jzo5x0q8.fsf@gnu.org> <83sf2tv029.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="5498"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 19 20:56:57 2024 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 1rQuz3-00019s-B8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 20:56:57 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rQuyZ-0000be-8b; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 14:56:27 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rQuyW-0000bJ-IY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 14:56:24 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rQuyV-0004D9-DJ; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 14:56:23 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=EyRpnuCGdaR3V+BF2t3sv8tRYM6joiP2whRJ2Ig1FMw=; b=lfIAkbRtCTS3 6hsCQce1py38O1OazdRtLfzaYG2H1/owWTPvEp3uiDVMbijERPj8dD4tabipQFzQFsEle5Qp1dGO0 z3AaPShfESU1qthiZLpDknb/tLm4rMjv7yYTSJ8FUXqPOTul6qkiV5imZPhlBIUW1igsHel4xAvQp lPHO5KpA1FQ3qFYjavdpSPD3C7razO/qvJEf4TTu2cYTxyQ9W/+ATEJdxn+qBJVQA+eifCF2BZJeD Aq3I2udUgeFgUikWA115MarN5oBOzz7drkuosooVm/cAuR6Bsk/oZaVts+3Rhjfj4yRSbHTq+1d4Y GFFdxJPmPzocmzj43C42iA==; In-Reply-To: (message from Alan Mackenzie on Fri, 19 Jan 2024 19:42:39 +0000) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:315123 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 19:42:39 +0000 > Cc: Stefan Monnier , > Paul Eggert , emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > > Why do you find this specific assertion important? When building other > > > `Lisp_Object`s (like `make_fixnum`) we don't seem to have any > > > corresponding assertion that the revere operation (e.g. XFIXNUM) returns > > > the original value. > > > make_fixnum is a trivial bit-shuffling, whereas make_lisp_symbol is > > much trickier. Perhaps especially so now that we have > > symbols-with-positions as well as bare symbols. > > Not really. Symbols with positions don't belong in the obarray. If they > somehow get there, then that's a bug to be fixed. Does that mean you'd like the assertion to be left there, or does that mean you don't care if it were removed?