From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: 2QdxY4RzWzUUiLuE@potatochowder.com Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Is it ok to sort a list of overlays destructively? Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 08:11:46 -0700 Message-ID: References: <87h7ggcov1.fsf@mbork.pl> <83bl6nvpcl.fsf@gnu.org> <87czr3ecpc.fsf@mbork.pl> <83wnpbtbsk.fsf@gnu.org> <87bl6ndlb3.fsf@mbork.pl> <83sfzyu0he.fsf@gnu.org> <83mtq5s3jg.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="29052"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 29 17:12:36 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@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 1m97i5-0007EE-JH for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 17:12:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56736 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m97i4-00065W-Hf for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 11:12:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43272) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <2QdxY4RzWzUUiLuE@potatochowder.com>) id 1m97hX-000658-TR for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 11:11:59 -0400 Original-Received: from www458.your-server.de ([136.243.165.62]:40506) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <2QdxY4RzWzUUiLuE@potatochowder.com>) id 1m97hV-0004wt-No for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 11:11:59 -0400 Original-Received: from sslproxy02.your-server.de ([78.47.166.47]) by www458.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <2QdxY4RzWzUUiLuE@potatochowder.com>) id 1m97hO-000BdX-Tr for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 17:11:50 +0200 Original-Received: from [2607:fb90:a68e:304f:51df:ae6e:8d42:34a9] (helo=localhost) by sslproxy02.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <2QdxY4RzWzUUiLuE@potatochowder.com>) id 1m97hN-000LgD-W4 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 17:11:50 +0200 Mail-Followup-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83mtq5s3jg.fsf@gnu.org> X-Authenticated-Sender: 2QdxY4RzWzUUiLuE@potatochowder.com X-Virus-Scanned: Clear (ClamAV 0.103.2/26247/Thu Jul 29 10:19:18 2021) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=136.243.165.62; envelope-from=2QdxY4RzWzUUiLuE@potatochowder.com; helo=www458.your-server.de X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.help:132179 Archived-At: On 2021-07-29 at 15:33:23 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: John Yates > > Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 07:34:07 -0400 > > Cc: Help Gnu Emacs mailing list > > > > On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 7:44 AM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > > > Basically, you should assume that Emacs protects itself where that is > > > needed, so if it handed you a list or some other data, and nothing in > > > the doc string warns you against doing something with that data, you > > > are free to do that, and if that causes unexpected results, there's > > > either a documentation bug or a code bug that needs to be fixed. > > > > I am not sure if such a statement exists in any of the manuals. Should > > it not be stated explicitly somewhere? > > I don't think it should be, no. It's pretty much obvious, IMO. I'm not disagreeing, but why is it obvious? Not all software works that way (it would be great if it did), whether the authors thought about it at all and/or intended it to work one way or the other, or not.