From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: RE: problems with Emacs 28 Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2020 10:00:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3cec75b0-410b-40c7-97c3-d04667c4c04d@default> References: <87lffwhop1.fsf@zoho.eu> <87r1poddpj.fsf@zoho.eu> <87pn58gdnj.fsf@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="9861"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" To: Michael Heerdegen , help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 24 19:01:40 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 1kWMvE-0002UW-Eb for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 19:01:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51712 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kWMvD-0006eR-FA for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 13:01:39 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60412) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kWMuY-0006cF-Ad for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 13:00:58 -0400 Original-Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:33064) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kWMuV-0005cD-Sb for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 13:00:57 -0400 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 09OGwuVT156980; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 17:00:53 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=bgeKWpCHwMQ0LHEuEOgkbSzQjp0RaDcqpfna9BFMJwo=; b=GlbaEyEYE7vYrL+RzUrfj39ia5T0NVsZSF7Rrr+WuhsqDKMFkwEhhU9fFfdHV2Im0axW 7tjszVNPku2Uay+lzVTIE0wPMMsw6eCKa6L0KxuE/eJRIITdc7RdMpyEozomMRLGgZAm KaZaR5zfDIvS12l6II8zkBu/0IpJj0+4I0MHKua7dNVraRf0E9ORKjFyLrRzXciuVBfA +Po2x9J487Y6DOuJ73cIjsxiSs5XwrR8BWmYnXxpOU5S8tbyjRsByXG8GrT6PS8veNY8 DoLznJuPb5eHyE0TgJDrN23t8s5qbCqKlmrRSHMRCdUbjP685cVFBdw+LsIo2izusBnf Fw== Original-Received: from userp3030.oracle.com (userp3030.oracle.com [156.151.31.80]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 34ccwmgvxp-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 24 Oct 2020 17:00:53 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 09OGp8At077560; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 17:00:52 GMT Original-Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by userp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 34c9cr6fdc-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 24 Oct 2020 17:00:52 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0007.oracle.com (abhmp0007.oracle.com [141.146.116.13]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 09OH0oKS019668; Sat, 24 Oct 2020 17:00:51 GMT In-Reply-To: <87pn58gdnj.fsf@web.de> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.5056.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9784 signatures=668682 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2010240132 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9784 signatures=668682 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2010240133 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=156.151.31.85; envelope-from=drew.adams@oracle.com; helo=userp2120.oracle.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/10/24 13:00:54 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.1-3.10 [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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:124697 Archived-At: > > What is that bang (explication mark) syntax BTW? >=20 > That comes from the scheme tradition: it is used for functions that > modify something (state), unlike "pure" functions that "only" calculate > a return value. E.g. `+', `car' vs. `setcar!' etc., you get it. FWIW, I think it's a mistake for Emacs to adopt that convention now, or at least it's a mistake to adopt it only partially. If users can't depend on it, to let them know if a function might modify data destructively, then it can mislead, and so be even more "dangerous". Now, we really need a giant sign saying that you can't rely on a destructive function's name having a suffix of `!'. ___ Same thing for Scheme's `?' suffix, to indicate a predicate. Elisp uses the more traditional Lisp suffix of `p' for a predicate. Introducing `?' now, in only a partial way, wouldn't help, and it might confuse. Of course, that's trivial compared with the effect of possible confusion over destructive modification. (Yes, I know `?' hasn't been proposed as a suffix for predicates. Just sayin.)