Morally equivalent

Morally equivalent

[John Haman]

The documentation for push is

> push is a Lisp macro in ‘subr.el’.
> 
> (push NEWELT PLACE)
> 
> Add NEWELT to the list stored in the generalized variable PLACE.
> This is morally equivalent to (setf PLACE (cons NEWELT PLACE)),
> except that PLACE is evaluated only once (after NEWELT).
> 
>   Other relevant functions are documented in the list group.
>   Probably introduced at or before Emacs version 21.1.

What is a 'moral equivalence' in Emacs Lisp?

-- 
Dr. John Haman
Bethesda, MD

Re: Morally equivalent

[Eduardo Ochs]

Maybe this?
https://eugeniacheng.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/cheng-morality.pdf

On Sat, 15 Oct 2022, 23:50 John Haman, <mail@johnhaman.org> wrote:

> The documentation for push is
>
> > push is a Lisp macro in ‘subr.el’.
> >
> > (push NEWELT PLACE)
> >
> > Add NEWELT to the list stored in the generalized variable PLACE.
> > This is morally equivalent to (setf PLACE (cons NEWELT PLACE)),
> > except that PLACE is evaluated only once (after NEWELT).
> >
> >   Other relevant functions are documented in the list group.
> >   Probably introduced at or before Emacs version 21.1.
>
> What is a 'moral equivalence' in Emacs Lisp?
>
> --
> Dr. John Haman
> Bethesda, MD
>
>
>
>

Re: Morally equivalent

[Michael Heerdegen]

John Haman <mail@johnhaman.org> writes:

> What is a 'moral equivalence' in Emacs Lisp?

Only that kind of slightly funny language Stefan sometimes uses I guess.

Michael.

RE: [External] : Re: Morally equivalent

[Drew Adams]

> > What is a 'moral equivalence' in Emacs Lisp?

Probably just meant "no better or worse" (and not morally).

But no, it's not really helpful as doc.

> Only that kind of slightly funny language Stefan sometimes uses I guess.

RE: [External] : Re: Morally equivalent

[Heime]

------- Original Message -------
On Sunday, October 16th, 2022 at 2:29 PM, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:


> > > What is a 'moral equivalence' in Emacs Lisp?
> 
> Probably just meant "no better or worse" (and not morally).
> 
> But no, it's not really helpful as doc.

Funny how then people claim that I am not of any help to users when one
asks a question or sends a bug report.  I might actually be as Stallman. 
 
> > Only that kind of slightly funny language Stefan sometimes uses I guess.
> 

RE: [External] : Re: Morally equivalent

[Dr Rainer Woitok]

Drew, Michael,

On Sunday, 2022-10-16 14:29:32 +0000, Drew Adams wrote:

> > > What is a 'moral equivalence' in Emacs Lisp?
> 
> Probably just meant "no better or worse" (and not morally).

Could it be that the writer of that docstring had

   ... is NORMALLY equivalent ...

in mind?

Sincerely,
  Rainer

RE: [External] : Re: Morally equivalent

[Drew Adams]

> > > > What is a 'moral equivalence' in Emacs Lisp?
> >
> > Probably just meant "no better or worse" (and not morally).
> 
> Could it be that the writer of that docstring had
> 
>    ... is NORMALLY equivalent ...
> 
> in mind?

Yes, could well be.  Maybe accidental.  More likely
intentional, as Michael offered: "Only that kind of
slightly funny language Stefan sometimes uses I guess."

Re: [External] : Re: Morally equivalent

[tomas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 884 bytes --]

On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 03:02:31PM +0000, Drew Adams wrote:
> > > > > What is a 'moral equivalence' in Emacs Lisp?
> > >
> > > Probably just meant "no better or worse" (and not morally).
> > 
> > Could it be that the writer of that docstring had
> > 
> >    ... is NORMALLY equivalent ...
> > 
> > in mind?
> 
> Yes, could well be.  Maybe accidental.  More likely
> intentional, as Michael offered: "Only that kind of
> slightly funny language Stefan sometimes uses I guess."

Actually, I knew "moral equivalence" as a sloppy and idiomatic
way of stating "equivalent under some criteria of interest in
the current context" (of course, the criteria and the context
are left unspecified ;-)

The discussion led me to some research [1], and yikes. That
rabbit hole was dark and deep indeed...

Cheers

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_equivalent
-- 
t

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: Morally equivalent

[Bob Newell]

> What is a 'moral equivalence' in Emacs Lisp?

I have actually seen this expression used in a similar manner
in what is supposed to be a serious mathematical textbook.
Grimmett & Welsh, in "Probability, An Introduction" state

"A slightly different but morally equivalent definition of a
discrete random variable is a function X : Omega -> R such
that there exists a countable subset S ⊆ R with P(X ∈ S) = 1."

-- 
Bob Newell
Honolulu, Hawai`i

- Via GNU/Linux/Emacs/Gnus/BBDB

RE: [External] : Re: Morally equivalent

[Drew Adams]

> > What is a 'moral equivalence' in Emacs Lisp?
> 
> I have actually seen this expression used in a similar manner
> in what is supposed to be a serious mathematical textbook.
> Grimmett & Welsh, in "Probability, An Introduction" state
> 
> "A slightly different but morally equivalent definition of a
> discrete random variable is a function X : Omega -> R such
> that there exists a countable subset S ⊆ R with P(X ∈ S) = 1."

And what did you conclude it meant there?

Just as good? More or less the same? Not
worse? Equivalent modulo some unstated or
maybe unknown but probably unimportant or
trivial diffrences?

Something else?

Re: [External] : Re: Morally equivalent

[Bob Newell]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

>> > What is a 'moral equivalence' in Emacs Lisp?
>> 
>> I have actually seen this expression used in a similar manner
>> in what is supposed to be a serious mathematical textbook.
>> Grimmett & Welsh, in "Probability, An Introduction" state
>> 
>> "A slightly different but morally equivalent definition of a
>> discrete random variable is a function X : Omega -> R such
>> that there exists a countable subset S ⊆ R with P(X ∈ S) = 1."
>
> And what did you conclude it meant there?
>
> Just as good? More or less the same? Not
> worse? Equivalent modulo some unstated or
> maybe unknown but probably unimportant or
> trivial diffrences?
>
> Something else?

I couldn't conclude a single thing from "morally equivalent" and
it's hardly a textbook I recommend or like (for many reasons
but that's way off topic). I found it interesting and amusing
that the same expression turned up elsewhere, that's the
extent of it. 

-- 
Bob Newell
Honolulu, Hawai`i

- Via GNU/Linux/Emacs/Gnus/BBDB

Re: Morally equivalent

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 at 7:27 AM
> From: "Bob Newell" <bobnewell@bobnewell.net>
> To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Morally equivalent
>
> 
> > What is a 'moral equivalence' in Emacs Lisp?
> 
> I have actually seen this expression used in a similar manner
> in what is supposed to be a serious mathematical textbook.
> Grimmett & Welsh, in "Probability, An Introduction" state
> 
> "A slightly different but morally equivalent definition of a
> discrete random variable is a function X : Omega -> R such
> that there exists a countable subset S ⊆ R with P(X ∈ S) = 1."
 
It is just political nonsense pushed into software.  An introductory
textbook for beginning undergraduates is never serious.  And even
if it was serious, morality does not work.  Either it is equivalent,
or it is not.  There is no morality in it.

It is hypocritical to scold users on how they annoy maintainers with
their bug reports, whilst no being bothered by the confusion and
waste of time caused by authors themselves when writing nonsense in
the documentation.  If it was only about humor that is comprehensible
as such, that would have been fine.

Re: Morally equivalent

[Michael Heerdegen]

Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:

> It is just political nonsense pushed into software.  An introductory
> textbook for beginning undergraduates is never serious.  And even
> if it was serious, morality does not work.  Either it is equivalent,
> or it is not.  There is no morality in it.

I was not familiar with that term (doesn't appear in German) but
understood the doc perfectly.  OTOH, if the text said

  This is not equivalent to (setf PLACE (cons NEWELT PLACE))

I would not have understood (and it is _not_ equivalent).

Until someone comes with a better wording we should stop the
Stefan-bashing.  Read it as "equivalent in some sense", and good.  It's
a text, ok, not a computer program controlling the city traffic.

Michael.

Re: Morally equivalent

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 at 11:10 AM
> From: "Michael Heerdegen" <michael_heerdegen@web.de>
> To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Morally equivalent
>
> Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:
>
> > It is just political nonsense pushed into software.  An introductory
> > textbook for beginning undergraduates is never serious.  And even
> > if it was serious, morality does not work.  Either it is equivalent,
> > or it is not.  There is no morality in it.
>
> I was not familiar with that term (doesn't appear in German) but
> understood the doc perfectly.  OTOH, if the text said
>
>   This is not equivalent to (setf PLACE (cons NEWELT PLACE))
>
> I would not have understood (and it is _not_ equivalent).
>
> Until someone comes with a better wording we should stop the
> Stefan-bashing.  Read it as "equivalent in some sense", and good.  It's
> a text, ok, not a computer program controlling the city traffic.
>
> Michael.

The problem was about the wording, if it turns out Stefan wrote it, then
he is not above anybody else.  The problem is that in some important ways,
things are not precise.  And users do not like that.

Re: Morally equivalent

[Michael Heerdegen]

Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:

> The problem was about the wording, if it turns out Stefan wrote it, then
> he is not above anybody else.  The problem is that in some important ways,
> things are not precise.

Nothing in human language is precise.  For me it was precise enough to
understand the meaning perfectly.

> And users do not like that.

I liked it.  Most people like it much less when Stefan tries to be more
precise.

Honestly, the only problem with that wording is that it might make
people wonder whether it is some sort of technical term, which it is not
really, so it can potentially confuse people.

Michael.

Re: Morally equivalent

[Eduardo Ochs]

On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 at 20:34, Michael Heerdegen
<michael_heerdegen@web.de> wrote:
>
> Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:
>
> > The problem was about the wording, if it turns out Stefan wrote it, then
> > he is not above anybody else.  The problem is that in some important ways,
> > things are not precise.
>
> Nothing in human language is precise.  For me it was precise enough to
> understand the meaning perfectly.
>
> > And users do not like that.
>
> I liked it.  Most people like it much less when Stefan tries to be more
> precise.
>
> Honestly, the only problem with that wording is that it might make
> people wonder whether it is some sort of technical term, which it is not
> really, so it can potentially confuse people.
>
> Michael.

It is "some sort of technical term":

  "A source of tension between Philosophers of Mathematics and
  Mathematicians is the fact that each group feels ignored by the
  other; daily mathematical practice seems barely affected by the
  questions the Philosophers are considering. In this talk I will
  describe an issue that does have an impact on mathematical practice,
  and a philosophical stance on mathematics that is detectable in the
  work of practising mathematicians.

  "No doubt controversially, I will call this issue `morality', but
  the term is not of my coining: there are mathematicians across the
  world who use the word `morally' to great effect in private, and I
  propose that there should be a public theory of what they mean by
  this. The issue arises because proofs, despite being revered as the
  backbone of mathematical truth, often contribute very little to a
  mathematician's understanding. `Moral' considerations, however,
  contribute a great deal. I will first describe what these `moral'
  considerations might be, and why mathematicians have appropriated
  the word `morality' for this notion. However, not all mathematicians
  are concerned with such notions, and I will give a characterisation
  of `moralist' mathematics and `moralist' mathematicians, and discuss
  the development of `morality' in individuals and in mathematics as a
  whole. Fi- nally, I will propose a theory for standardising or
  universalising a system of mathematical morality, and discuss how
  this might help in the development of good mathematics."

  http://eugeniacheng.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/cheng-morality.pdf

[[]] =/,
  Eduardo Ochs
  http://angg.twu.net/#eev

Re: Morally equivalent

[Stefan Monnier via Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor]

Eduardo Ochs [2022-10-16 20:47:29] wrote:
> It is "some sort of technical term":
[...]
>   http://eugeniacheng.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/cheng-morality.pdf

While I enjoyed reading that article (thank you for the link), I'm not
sure my fateful use of that term in that docstring coincides with what
the article talks about.

The article's notion of "morally equivalent" seems to have a much more
charged meaning (IIUC it implies that we really believe it to be
equivalent, tho without proof).  I think my use here matches the
description given by Tomas where "morally" was just another way to say
"more or less": I know for a fact that it's not always equivalent, tho
it often is (and when it isn't, the difference can be justified as
an "intuitive" or "natural" consequence of the difference in syntax).


        Stefan

Re: Morally equivalent

[Dr Rainer Woitok]

Stefan and all,

On Sunday, 2022-10-16 21:13:36 -0400, Stefan wrote:

> ...
>                                  I think my use here matches the
> description given by Tomas where "morally" was just another way to say
> "more or less"

May I then _kindly_ suggest to simply

1. Replace in the docstring of command "push" the string "This is moral-
   ly equivalent to ..." with "This is similar to ...",

2. Stop this time-wasting discussion and all this bashing,

3. Refrain from asking me to open a corresponding bug report :-)

Sincerely,
  Rainer

Re: Morally equivalent

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 at 11:32 AM
> From: "Michael Heerdegen" <michael_heerdegen@web.de>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Morally equivalent
>
> Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:
>
> > The problem was about the wording, if it turns out Stefan wrote it, then
> > he is not above anybody else.  The problem is that in some important ways,
> > things are not precise.
>
> Nothing in human language is precise.  For me it was precise enough to
> understand the meaning perfectly.
>
> > And users do not like that.
>
> I liked it.  Most people like it much less when Stefan tries to be more
> precise.
>
> Honestly, the only problem with that wording is that it might make
> people wonder whether it is some sort of technical term, which it is not
> really, so it can potentially confuse people.
>
> Michael.

When people start wondering whether something is a technical term, then it is a
big problem.  Stefan like all of us, should learn from his mistakes.  When
we start getting fuzzy on the technical, I hit the alarm bells.

Nobody can deny that they have been influenced by their family, society, whatever
kind of work practices.  I rise above that, by not being influenced by the
atmosphere.  There was a discussion years ago about jokes in code.  We agreed
that jokes were fine when they do not interfere with the technical.  I have
seen some honest comments in the code, quite enlightening.

Re: Morally equivalent

[Michael Heerdegen]

Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:

> When people start wondering whether something is a technical term,
> then it is a
> big problem.  Stefan like all of us, should learn from his mistakes.

I think the bigger problem, rather than Stefan's ability to learn from
mistakes, is to find people actually trying to improve the
documentation.

It's easy to find things that are not perfect.  If you want to help,
search for bug reports about documentation and work on them.  It's not
more fun for Stefan than for anyone else.  Discussing that things are
not perfect is trivial - that's clear to _all_ of us.  All of us know
that.  We need more people to do the work, not people to remind and
discuss that there is work to do.

Michael.

Re: Morally equivalent

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 at 12:10 PM
> From: "Michael Heerdegen" <michael_heerdegen@web.de>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Morally equivalent
>
> Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:
>
> > When people start wondering whether something is a technical term,
> > then it is a
> > big problem.  Stefan like all of us, should learn from his mistakes.
>
> I think the bigger problem, rather than Stefan's ability to learn from
> mistakes, is to find people actually trying to improve the
> documentation.

Right.  But I would say that the easiest thing is to write better documentation
(in source) as you are writing the code.  At least that part should be good.
The source documentation is the biggest strength of this system.

> It's easy to find things that are not perfect.  If you want to help,
> search for bug reports about documentation and work on them.  It's not
> more fun for Stefan than for anyone else.  Discussing that things are
> not perfect is trivial - that's clear to _all_ of us.  All of us know
> that.  We need more people to do the work, not people to remind and
> discuss that there is work to do.
>
> Michael.

The documentation is getting longer and longer.  And many people do not have time
for that.  They require shortcuts.  From my experience, besides maintainers there
should be designers.  So that in future, people would require less knowledge rather
than more, to achieve a task.  Competent designers almost don't exist, this has
always been the case.  Look at the documentation for latex, always gets worse as time
goes by.

Re: Morally equivalent

[Michael Heerdegen]

Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:

> Right.  But I would say that the easiest thing is to write better
> documentation (in source) as you are writing the code.  At least that
> part should be good.  The source documentation is the biggest strength
> of this system.

Sounds excellent in theory.  In reality lots of people are not good at
writing good documentation.  Or don't want to.  Or hate it.
Although everybody knows that they _should_ do exactly what you
describe.  The problem is not that they don't know.

> The documentation is getting longer and longer.

IME the documentation gets longer approx. in the same rate that Emacs
grows.  And it still does grow.  Selective reading is not prohibited, as
is selective familiarization with Emacs.  Documentation is also quite
good, on average, and also partly redundant, so you even have the luxury
to choose between several paths.  The hard part in mastering Emacs is
Emacs, not its documentation.  People do it nonetheless because it's
worth it.  Others don't because it's not worth it for them.

Michael.

Re: Morally equivalent

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 at 12:53 PM
> From: "Michael Heerdegen" <michael_heerdegen@web.de>
> To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Morally equivalent
>
> Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:
>
> > Right.  But I would say that the easiest thing is to write better
> > documentation (in source) as you are writing the code.  At least that
> > part should be good.  The source documentation is the biggest strength
> > of this system.
>
> Sounds excellent in theory.  In reality lots of people are not good at
> writing good documentation.  Or don't want to.  Or hate it.
> Although everybody knows that they _should_ do exactly what you
> describe.  The problem is not that they don't know.

That happened many times at work too.  We all had to go look at the code
eventually.  And had various projects where rewriting was faster than
understanding the code.  Have also seen wrappers on wrappers on wrappers
that ultimately re-used old code from 1969.  Absolutely terrible.  This
was at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.  Eventually got fed up of
all that and show no respect towards national labs.


> > The documentation is getting longer and longer.
>
> IME the documentation gets longer approx. in the same rate that Emacs
> grows.  And it still does grow.  Selective reading is not prohibited, as
> is selective familiarization with Emacs.  Documentation is also quite
> good, on average, and also partly redundant, so you even have the luxury
> to choose between several paths.  The hard part in mastering Emacs is
> Emacs, not its documentation.  People do it nonetheless because it's
> worth it.  Others don't because it's not worth it for them.
>
> Michael.

The emacs internals are quite hard.  As are the internals of texinfo.
Selective reading is hard because there are lack of tools and techniques
to automate reliably.  Ideally, people would not have to read the Lisp
Manual, but be able to get what they need selectively.

Re: Morally equivalent

[tomas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 351 bytes --]

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 02:32:09AM +0200, Christopher Dimech wrote:

[...]

> Right.  But I would say that the easiest thing is to write better documentation
> (in source) as you are writing the code.

This seems to me morally equivalent to "I don't want to do the work,
but I enjoy rambling about what others ought to do".

Cheers
-- 
t

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: Morally equivalent

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 at 4:52 PM
> From: tomas@tuxteam.de
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: "Michael Heerdegen" <michael_heerdegen@web.de>, help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Morally equivalent
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 02:32:09AM +0200, Christopher Dimech wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Right.  But I would say that the easiest thing is to write better documentation
> > (in source) as you are writing the code.
>
> This seems to me morally equivalent to "I don't want to do the work,
> but I enjoy rambling about what others ought to do".

What I can do, nobody can do.  Furthermore, I have no morals.  When you are in unfamiliar
territory it is wise to find a guide.  You are the soldier, I am the four star general.
If you are incapable of taking instructions, it's likely that you die.  Makes no difference
to me.  My only concern is if you get blown away, your partners will get blown away with you.

Re: Morally equivalent

[Akib Azmain Turja]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 747 bytes --]

Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:

> What I can do, nobody can do.  Furthermore, I have no morals.  When you are in unfamiliar
> territory it is wise to find a guide.  You are the soldier, I am the four star general.
> If you are incapable of taking instructions, it's likely that you die.  Makes no difference
> to me.  My only concern is if you get blown away, your partners will get blown away with you.

How this is related to this discussion and Emacs?  Please go to
emacs-tangents list.

-- 
Akib Azmain Turja

Find me on Mastodon at @akib@hostux.social, and on Codeberg (user
"akib").

This message is signed by me with my GnuPG key.  Its fingerprint is:

    7001 8CE5 819F 17A3 BBA6  66AF E74F 0EFA 922A E7F5

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

Re: Morally equivalent

[Christopher Dimech]

----- Christopher Dimech
Administrator General - Naiad Informatics - Gnu Project

Society has become too quick to pass judgement and declare someone
Persona Non-Grata, the most extreme form of censure a country can
bestow.

In a new era of destructive authoritarianism, I support Richard
Stallman.  Times of great crisis are also times of great
opportunity.  I call upon you to make this struggle yours as well !

https://stallmansupport.org/
https://www.fsf.org/     https://www.gnu.org


> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 at 2:08 AM
> From: "Akib Azmain Turja" <akib@disroot.org>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: tomas@tuxteam.de, "Michael Heerdegen" <michael_heerdegen@web.de>, help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Morally equivalent
>
> Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:
>
> > What I can do, nobody can do.  Furthermore, I have no morals.  When you are in unfamiliar
> > territory it is wise to find a guide.  You are the soldier, I am the four star general.
> > If you are incapable of taking instructions, it's likely that you die.  Makes no difference
> > to me.  My only concern is if you get blown away, your partners will get blown away with you.
>
> How this is related to this discussion and Emacs?  Please go to
> emacs-tangents list.

It was a response to Tomas, who claimed that because I do not seem
to have done any work on emacs, there is no place for me to convey
instructions.  Frequently I do not take acknowledgment of work and
time on the project.  Because Tomas brought it up on this list, the
response was included here rather than on emacs-tangents.  Besides,
I have no plan to go further with it.

>
> --
> Akib Azmain Turja
>
> Find me on Mastodon at @akib@hostux.social, and on Codeberg (user
> "akib").
>
> This message is signed by me with my GnuPG key.  Its fingerprint is:
>
>     7001 8CE5 819F 17A3 BBA6  66AF E74F 0EFA 922A E7F5
>

Re: Morally equivalent

[tomas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 440 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 06:24:30PM +0200, Christopher Dimech wrote:

[...]

> It was a response to Tomas, who claimed that because I do not seem
> to have done any work on emacs, there is no place for me to convey
> instructions [...]

JFTR: this is a total misrepresentation of what I wrote. But I'm not
going to waste both our times (much less that of the other folks in
this list!) to discuss that with you.

Cheers
-- 
t

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: Morally equivalent

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 at 6:29 AM
> From: tomas@tuxteam.de
> To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Morally equivalent
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 06:24:30PM +0200, Christopher Dimech wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > It was a response to Tomas, who claimed that because I do not seem
> > to have done any work on emacs, there is no place for me to convey
> > instructions [...]
>
> JFTR: this is a total misrepresentation of what I wrote. But I'm not
> going to waste both our times (much less that of the other folks in
> this list!) to discuss that with you.
>
> Cheers
> --
> t

If it is false, I retract my thought.

Felicitations
Christopher

Re: Morally equivalent

[Akib Azmain Turja]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1455 bytes --]

Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de> writes:

> Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com> writes:
>
>> It is just political nonsense pushed into software.  An introductory
>> textbook for beginning undergraduates is never serious.  And even
>> if it was serious, morality does not work.  Either it is equivalent,
>> or it is not.  There is no morality in it.
>
> I was not familiar with that term (doesn't appear in German) but
> understood the doc perfectly.  OTOH, if the text said
>
>   This is not equivalent to (setf PLACE (cons NEWELT PLACE))
>
> I would not have understood (and it is _not_ equivalent).
>
> Until someone comes with a better wording we should stop the
> Stefan-bashing.  Read it as "equivalent in some sense", and good.  It's
> a text, ok, not a computer program controlling the city traffic.
>
> Michael.
>
>

This should be:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
This is almost equivalent to (setf PLACE (cons NEWELT PLACE)),
except that PLACE is evaluated only once (after NEWELT).
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Anyway, I enjoy occasionally finding things like "morally equivalent" in
Emacs.

-- 
Akib Azmain Turja

Find me on Mastodon at @akib@hostux.social, and on Codeberg (user
"akib").

This message is signed by me with my GnuPG key.  Its fingerprint is:

    7001 8CE5 819F 17A3 BBA6  66AF E74F 0EFA 922A E7F5

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

Re: Morally equivalent

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Akib Azmain Turja <akib@disroot.org>
> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:49:16 +0600
> 
> This should be:
> 
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> This is almost equivalent to (setf PLACE (cons NEWELT PLACE)),
> except that PLACE is evaluated only once (after NEWELT).
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Why not just "This is similar to"?

> Anyway, I enjoy occasionally finding things like "morally equivalent" in
> Emacs.

Yeah, it's amazing how much noise can an innocent phrase cause around
here.

Re: Morally equivalent

[tomas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 878 bytes --]

On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 09:44:15AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Akib Azmain Turja <akib@disroot.org>
> > Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> > Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:49:16 +0600
> > 
> > This should be:
> > 
> > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> > This is almost equivalent to (setf PLACE (cons NEWELT PLACE)),
> > except that PLACE is evaluated only once (after NEWELT).
> > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> 
> Why not just "This is similar to"?

Back to topic, yes. It seems that this phrase is too jargon-ish to be
easily understandable to everyone.
> 
> > Anyway, I enjoy occasionally finding things like "morally equivalent" in
> > Emacs.
> 
> Yeah, it's amazing how much noise can an innocent phrase cause around
> here.

Documentation is hard, after all.

Cheers
-- 
t

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: Morally equivalent

[Thibaut Verron]

Le lun. 17 oct. 2022 à 09:50, <tomas@tuxteam.de> a écrit :

> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 09:44:15AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > From: Akib Azmain Turja <akib@disroot.org>
> > > Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> > > Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:49:16 +0600
> > >
> > > This should be:
> > >
> > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> > > This is almost equivalent to (setf PLACE (cons NEWELT PLACE)),
> > > except that PLACE is evaluated only once (after NEWELT).
> > > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> >
> > Why not just "This is similar to"?
>
> Back to topic, yes. It seems that this phrase is too jargon-ish to be
> easily understandable to everyone.
>

Isn't there the technical term "functionally equivalent" for something that
will have the exact same outcome with possible differences in
implementation?
If the goal is to reduce the jargon, it could just be "the end effect is
the same as that of (...), but PLACE is evaluated only once".

It's not rigorously true, because the outcome will be different if
evaluating PLACE has side effects. But imo this is such an outlandish
scenario (if it can even happen in the first place) that it doesn't need to
be the primary focus of the docstring of push. And someone who is dealing
with such a scenario should be able to infer the potential consequences
just by being reminded that PLACE will be evaluated as many times as it
appears.

I personally find "morally equivalent" or "almost equivalent" clearer than
"similar": "similar" could refer to any other aspect of the object, besides
the functionality.

Best wishes,
Thibaut

Re: Morally equivalent

[Rudolf Adamkovič]

Thibaut Verron <thibaut.verron@gmail.com> writes:

> I personally find "morally equivalent" or "almost equivalent" clearer
> than "similar": "similar" could refer to any other aspect of the
> object, besides the functionality.

We can do better, going from "equivalent" to "typically equivalent" to
"sometimes equivalent" to "rarely equivalent" to "never equivalent".

If virtually all native and non-native, technical and non-technical,
English speakers across in the world understand "typically equivalent",
why would we say "morally equivalent", which few understand clearly?

P.S. Personally, I would read "morally" in this context as a typo.

Rudy
-- 
"Logic is a science of the necessary laws of thought, without which no
employment of the understanding and the reason takes place."
-- Immanuel Kant, 1785

Rudolf Adamkovič <salutis@me.com> [he/him]
Studenohorská 25
84103 Bratislava
Slovakia

Re: Morally equivalent

[Michael Heerdegen]

Thibaut Verron <thibaut.verron@gmail.com> writes:

> It's not rigorously true, because the outcome will be different if
> evaluating PLACE has side effects. But imo this is such an outlandish
> scenario (if it can even happen in the first place) that it doesn't need to
> be the primary focus of the docstring of push.

Good point.  It's just about an implementation detail.  In other
docstrings we just say "equivalent but produces slightly more efficient
code" or simply "equivalent".

Or has anyone ever used a place expression (whose getter) has side
effects?  Relying on that would probably uncover one hundred and five
bugs.

So - to lead this to some end - is there someone not agreeing that we
could just say "equivalent"?

Micheal.

Re: Morally equivalent

[Emanuel Berg]

Michael Heerdegen wrote:

> Good point. It's just about an implementation detail.
> In other docstrings we just say "equivalent but produces
> slightly more efficient code" or simply "equivalent".
>
> Or has anyone ever used a place expression (whose getter)
> has side effects? Relying on that would probably uncover one
> hundred and five bugs.
>
> So - to lead this to some end - is there someone not
> agreeing that we could just say "equivalent"?

Agreed, but can we also drop "slightly"?

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Morally equivalent

[Po Lu]

Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de> writes:

> Thibaut Verron <thibaut.verron@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> It's not rigorously true, because the outcome will be different if
>> evaluating PLACE has side effects. But imo this is such an outlandish
>> scenario (if it can even happen in the first place) that it doesn't need to
>> be the primary focus of the docstring of push.
>
> Good point.  It's just about an implementation detail.  In other
> docstrings we just say "equivalent but produces slightly more efficient
> code" or simply "equivalent".
>
> Or has anyone ever used a place expression (whose getter) has side
> effects?  Relying on that would probably uncover one hundred and five
> bugs.
>
> So - to lead this to some end - is there someone not agreeing that we
> could just say "equivalent"?
>
> Micheal.

The meaning of "morally equivalent" is quite obvious.  If not
immediately, then from context.

How did a simple phrase generate so much noise on this list?

Re: Morally equivalent

[Michael Heerdegen]

Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:

> The meaning of "morally equivalent" is quite obvious.  If not
> immediately, then from context.
>
> How did a simple phrase generate so much noise on this list?

The answer is "Moralists!"  Anyway, welcome on board.

Or - better lets stop here before it gets impossible.

Michael.

Re: Morally equivalent

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>
> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 10:39:49 +0800
> 
> How did a simple phrase generate so much noise on this list?

The noise level on this (and not only this) list is inversely
proportional to the simplicity of the issue.

Re: Morally equivalent

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 2:11 AM
> From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
> To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Morally equivalent
>
> > From: Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>
> > Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> > Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 10:39:49 +0800
> >
> > How did a simple phrase generate so much noise on this list?
>
> The noise level on this (and not only this) list is inversely
> proportional to the simplicity of the issue.

It customarily stems from myself understanding the OP, and
criticism on my part is taken as a confrontation by some.
As are criticisms between OPs and readers on the list.
Nevertheless, after some wrangling, some guidance has resulted
in positive changes (e.g. better handling of tex, plan for org-mode
to generate documentation).  But other problems could persist for a
very long time.  For instance, the difficulties originating from the
fact that info uses tex as the fundamental engine,  rather than
progressing to a system powered by a latex3 engine.

Although this particular solution was simple, I wonder how a change
on description considered unclear to some users garnered so much
resistance.  The fear of losing face could at times trample the need
for some changes, even when minor.

Although the running of the technical admin part does progress
things, some responses are thumbed as others (including myself)
am not seen doing much technical work on emacs.  At intervals someone
screams about wanting to get paid.  The latter likely arises when
someone is working on tasks that are not important to them.

Re: Morally equivalent

[Emanuel Berg]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> How did a simple phrase generate so much noise on
>> this list?
>
> The noise level on this (and not only this) list is
> inversely proportional to the simplicity of the issue.

One can only dream of a world where that was reversed, so the
the more complicated something was, the more brilliant and
to-the-point comments it would get ...

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Morally equivalent

[Akib Azmain Turja]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 906 bytes --]

Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
>>> How did a simple phrase generate so much noise on
>>> this list?
>>
>> The noise level on this (and not only this) list is
>> inversely proportional to the simplicity of the issue.
>
> One can only dream of a world where that was reversed, so the
> the more complicated something was, the more brilliant and
> to-the-point comments it would get ...

There are many examples of discussions that result in nothing except the
waste of the time of many people.  This is also "morally" (if not
completely) equivalent to those discussions.

IMHO, even this message is a waste of time.

-- 
Akib Azmain Turja

Find me on Mastodon at @akib@hostux.social, and on Codeberg (user
"akib").

This message is signed by me with my GnuPG key.  Its fingerprint is:

    7001 8CE5 819F 17A3 BBA6  66AF E74F 0EFA 922A E7F5

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

Re: Morally equivalent

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 at 2:05 AM
> From: "Akib Azmain Turja" <akib@disroot.org>
> To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Morally equivalent
>
> Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> writes:
>
> > Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >
> >>> How did a simple phrase generate so much noise on
> >>> this list?
> >>
> >> The noise level on this (and not only this) list is
> >> inversely proportional to the simplicity of the issue.
> >
> > One can only dream of a world where that was reversed, so the
> > the more complicated something was, the more brilliant and
> > to-the-point comments it would get ...
>
> There are many examples of discussions that result in nothing except the
> waste of the time of many people.  This is also "morally" (if not
> completely) equivalent to those discussions.
>
> IMHO, even this message is a waste of time.

The waste of time was arguing for "Morally Equivalent", when an OP wants
a clarification.

> --
> Akib Azmain Turja
>
> Find me on Mastodon at @akib@hostux.social, and on Codeberg (user
> "akib").
>
> This message is signed by me with my GnuPG key.  Its fingerprint is:
>
>     7001 8CE5 819F 17A3 BBA6  66AF E74F 0EFA 922A E7F5
>

Re: Morally equivalent

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 at 7:48 PM
> From: tomas@tuxteam.de
> To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Morally equivalent
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 09:44:15AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > From: Akib Azmain Turja <akib@disroot.org>
> > > Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> > > Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 10:49:16 +0600
> > >
> > > This should be:
> > >
> > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> > > This is almost equivalent to (setf PLACE (cons NEWELT PLACE)),
> > > except that PLACE is evaluated only once (after NEWELT).
> > > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> >
> > Why not just "This is similar to"?
>
> Back to topic, yes. It seems that this phrase is too jargon-ish to be
> easily understandable to everyone.
> >
> > > Anyway, I enjoy occasionally finding things like "morally equivalent" in
> > > Emacs.
> >
> > Yeah, it's amazing how much noise can an innocent phrase cause around
> > here.
>
> Documentation is hard, after all.

Quite right.  Let us not forget that for years, some developers have regarded certain
programming terminology - most notably 'master/slave' as problematic.  For example, there
was a push a few years ago to remove those terms from Python documentation, which led to
much heated discussion.   Dismissing university students, those having much on their hands
only read what is actually useful and quick.  Today, there is much more to read than a
lifetime to live.  If education avoided wasting thought, one could easily compress those
21 years to 8 years.  The circus of morality does not lead to anything.

Re: Morally equivalent

[Alessandro Bertulli]

> This should be:
>
> This is almost equivalent to (setf PLACE (cons NEWELT PLACE)),
> except that PLACE is evaluated only once (after NEWELT).
>
> Anyway, I enjoy occasionally finding things like "morally equivalent" in
> Emacs.

I agree. I think this kind of language actually beneficial, when it
helps in conveying the "intuition" behind a concept, using analogies
(this of course is nothing new, you almost certainly did this too if you
ever had to explain something to someone less experienced than you).

If we find this choice of word poor or misleading, that's actually very
good: it means we care for the quality of Emacs. But I would say that a
clarification would be just as good, without giving up the analogy:

"This is morally equvalent to [...], meaning that it is equal in all
practical sense, except that [...]"

(please correct me if I misunderstood something)

As a OCD guy, please let me tell you all: relax! :-)
It's very good to be passionate even about minor things. Not so much if
those become a division.

-- 
Alessandro Bertulli

Re: Morally equivalent

[Will Mengarini]

* John Haman <mail@johnhaman.org> [22-10/15=Sa 22:45 -0400]:
> The documentation for push is
>
>> push is a Lisp macro in 'subr.el'.
>>
>> (push NEWELT PLACE)
>>
>> Add NEWELT to the list stored in the generalized variable PLACE.
>> This is morally equivalent to (setf PLACE (cons NEWELT PLACE)),
>> except that PLACE is evaluated only once (after NEWELT).
>>
>>   Other relevant functions are documented in the list group.
>>   Probably introduced at or before Emacs version 21.1.
>
> What is a 'moral equivalence' in Emacs Lisp?

The phrase "morally equivalent" is intended to be a humorous reference
to <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Equivalent_of_War_speech>.

Back in a workplace in the 1970s, I asked whether
some printer was a DECwriter or "the moral equivalent
of a DECwriter" (meaning a functionally equivalent
printer from different manufacturer), and got a laugh.

The phrase was funny because the speech that popularized it was
widely considered to be overly bombastic, and a failure in achieving
its objectives; this was why "Moral Equivalent Of War" was popularly
referred to by the acronym "MEOW".  (Note that the general prediction
made by that speech, that an energy crisis would worsen, came
true, and many of the speech's recommendations have been followed.
But that is irrelevant to the prevailing attitude at the time;
it was that attitude that resulted in the comic implication.)

Consequently, the word "equivalent" and cognates were often
embellished as "morally equivalent" and cognates; but
this was merely a comic flourish without semantic import.

But that was half a century ago!  Now, nobody remembers it, and I
read this whole thread without seeing a link to the speech that would
explain it.  Even with that link, you had to live through those times
to grok the contempt for U.S President Jimmy Carter that made him a
one-term president and ushered in 12 years of Republican presidency.
(Carter had tried to be what could be described as a hard-ass liberal,
thereby alienating everybody across the political spectrum.)

So, the documentation should be patched to remove the comic archaism.

Comedy in documentation needs to consider its expected lifespan.
Even short-lived documentation often has a target audience that
is busy solving problems, and is uninterested in jokes.  When
the expected lifespan of the documentation is most conveniently
measured in centuries (!), comedy leads to threads like this.

--
The quote "anyone who thinks people lack originality should watch
them folding roadmaps", attributed to Franklin Jopnes, confuses
me because although I am aware that roadmaps can be installed on
folding devices, folding the device renders the roadmap invisible,
leaving only the navigation voice (e.g "turn left at the next
intersection") and necessitating unquestioning obedience to it,
demonstrating a lack of originality that seems to contradict
the conversational implicature entailed in the original quote.

Re: Morally equivalent

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2022-10-23, at 12:16, Will Mengarini <seldon@eskimo.com> wrote:

> The phrase "morally equivalent" is intended to be a humorous reference
> to <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Equivalent_of_War_speech>.

Thanks a lot for this explanation!  I had no idea, and this was _very_
interesting.

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://mbork.pl

Re: Morally equivalent

[Emanuel Berg]

Marcin Borkowski wrote:

>> The phrase "morally equivalent" is intended to be
>> a humorous reference to
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Equivalent_of_War_speech>.
>
> Thanks a lot for this explanation! I had no idea, and this
> was _very_ interesting.

It's the way he is telling it ...

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Morally equivalent

[Emanuel Berg]

Will Mengarini wrote:

>> What is a 'moral equivalence' in Emacs Lisp?
>
> The phrase "morally equivalent" is intended to be a humorous
> reference to
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Equivalent_of_War_speech>.
>
> Back in a workplace in the 1970s, I asked whether some
> printer was a DECwriter or "the moral equivalent of
> a DECwriter" (meaning a functionally equivalent printer from
> different manufacturer), and got a laugh.
>
> The phrase was funny because the speech that popularized it
> was widely considered to be overly bombastic, and a failure
> in achieving its objectives; this was why "Moral Equivalent
> Of War" was popularly referred to by the acronym "MEOW".
> (Note that the general prediction made by that speech, that
> an energy crisis would worsen, came true, and many of the
> speech's recommendations have been followed. But that is
> irrelevant to the prevailing attitude at the time; it was
> that attitude that resulted in the comic implication.)
>
> Consequently, the word "equivalent" and cognates were often
> embellished as "morally equivalent" and cognates; but this
> was merely a comic flourish without semantic import.
>
> But that was half a century ago! Now, nobody remembers it,
> and I read this whole thread without seeing a link to the
> speech that would explain it. Even with that link, you had
> to live through those times to grok the contempt for U.S
> President Jimmy Carter that made him a one-term president
> and ushered in 12 years of Republican presidency. (Carter
> had tried to be what could be described as a hard-ass
> liberal, thereby alienating everybody across the
> political spectrum.)
>
> So, the documentation should be patched to remove the
> comic archaism.
>
> Comedy in documentation needs to consider its expected
> lifespan. Even short-lived documentation often has a target
> audience that is busy solving problems, and is uninterested
> in jokes. When the expected lifespan of the documentation is
> most conveniently measured in centuries (!), comedy leads to
> threads like this.

:O

Holy cow!

Any questions?

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal