From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jean Louis Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Is there equivalent internal function for this list-has-elements? Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 23:15:05 +0300 Message-ID: <20201019201505.GS19325@protected.rcdrun.com> References: <20201019180655.GL19325@protected.rcdrun.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="10969"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 19 22:15:45 2020 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 1kUbZI-0002k7-RO for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 22:15:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54528 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kUbZH-00046D-Tr for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:15:43 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57524) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kUbYq-000464-43 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:15:16 -0400 Original-Received: from static.rcdrun.com ([95.85.24.50]:57523) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kUbYo-0001xC-AJ for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:15:15 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([::ffff:41.202.241.51]) (AUTH: PLAIN admin, TLS: TLS1.2,256bits,ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) by static.rcdrun.com with ESMTPSA id 00000000002A0B42.000000005F8DF3CF.0000241C; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 20:15:10 +0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=95.85.24.50; envelope-from=bugs@gnu.support; helo=static.rcdrun.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/10/19 12:25:27 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.11 and newer [fuzzy] 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_PASS=-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:124589 Archived-At: * Stefan Monnier [2020-10-19 21:20]: > > I want to use function that is always unchangable or default within > > Emacs for future years, and which is fast. > > `push` and `cl-pushnew` are your guys. > > > Apparently add-to-list is mentioned as not to be abused, > > The main problem with it is that it can only be used on dynamically > scoped variables, whereas `push` and `cl-pushnew` can be used on any > variable you like and even on any *place* you like. > > If it weren't for the fact that it's used in very many places, I'd have > marked `add-to-list` as deprecated back in Emacs-24. What you explained about dynamically scoped variables now makes sense. Then those words "dynamically scoped variables" should be entered into documentation for that function >This is handy to add some elements to configuration variables, but please do not abuse it in Elisp code, where you are usually better off using ‘push’ or ‘cl-pushnew’.: "Please do not abuse it in Elisp code" -- I did understand what it means, I was here thinking more of using it let us say on very large lists, that would be "abuse" for me, it is also in the sense of excessively. But then it is probably meant not to use it excessively in the sense of too often. That should be better clarified.