From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Bound index checks in cl-seq functions Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 15:52:50 +0200 Message-ID: <83zih2lb65.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87efzdrjsj.fsf@calancha-pc> <87inoisd6y.fsf@calancha-pc> <87r32f7yq6.fsf_-_@calancha-pc> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1488549370 16126 195.159.176.226 (3 Mar 2017 13:56:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 13:56:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jwiegley@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Tino Calancha Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 03 14:56:06 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cjnge-0002mO-KU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Mar 2017 14:56:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58207 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cjngf-0002Vx-NN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Mar 2017 08:56:01 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37645) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cjndv-0000qg-U2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Mar 2017 08:53:12 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cjndr-0006FI-Vj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Mar 2017 08:53:11 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:55491) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cjndr-0006FC-SE; Fri, 03 Mar 2017 08:53:07 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2951 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1cjndr-0007d1-2L; Fri, 03 Mar 2017 08:53:07 -0500 In-reply-to: <87r32f7yq6.fsf_-_@calancha-pc> (message from Tino Calancha on Fri, 03 Mar 2017 13:47:45 +0900) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:212740 Archived-At: > From: Tino Calancha > Cc: Emacs developers , tino.calancha@gmail.com > Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 13:47:45 +0900 > > i am curious if you have any opinion on this thread. Currently just > `cl-subseq' performs the bounding check index. I don't see a > clear reason why just this function do it. > Are you in favour or against doing those checks in other functions > handling sequences? I don't have any firm opinions on this. I do note, however, that your motivation for signaling an error was contested. So I wonder whether the cause for this is strong enough to make that change. But I'm willing to defer to people who use these features more than I do.