From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#39557: 27.0.60; Elisp manual, doc about bignums Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 13:36:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5fe049c8-18b5-4941-9e34-c320500f49d2@default> References: <3d420026-bb32-413f-9a9c-304240aa82e2@default> <8336bhrrb4.fsf@gnu.org> <85sgjgyeya.fsf@gmail.com> <7f19329d-6d7e-40e1-9c5c-ef6b58e25a62@default> <85imkbyf88.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="83236"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 39557@debbugs.gnu.org To: Noam Postavsky Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 12 22:37:11 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-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 1j1zh1-000LXO-Hq for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 22:37:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43688 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j1zh0-0004yy-Hq for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 16:37:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50572) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j1zgt-0004yo-En for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 16:37:04 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j1zgr-0008H7-T3 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 16:37:03 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:53155) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j1zgr-0008Gz-Pr for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 16:37:01 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j1zgr-0003X1-Mp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 16:37:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 21:37:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 39557 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 39557-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B39557.158154339213541 (code B ref 39557); Wed, 12 Feb 2020 21:37:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 39557) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Feb 2020 21:36:32 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59128 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j1zgO-0003WL-9f for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 16:36:32 -0500 Original-Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:58882) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j1zgM-0003W7-56 for 39557@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 16:36:30 -0500 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 01CLVENv128426; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 21:36:23 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=GlnXyjkOLo+WCxyj8dq17iuCIOOslaIIyxebYbguRRA=; b=q9XHOm87q+Se3etKly99M4RdYXS6XwGZmVd639oImYtmZZGzb2XgsRceaxC7FL1mZ6AO cVDBGafVEUq79eOCvH5L285sH0QjrsYTqAAm5vyDbFGZnKSd0S5t8w9OGE7mQpR+UKMg WHJds5VaZDRUcFbIfLgBge9K4Dv3amwmVGft9XP4GOe9FgmsS1pf1PsM6fZJBII1Th4g JuFdiMPXZIWwaKwgRo/ZsckvsQbfLe+QIylFDOZJ1zBjiquKWvA/zlo1ZTMSupkjG7mc YYVXVz977VCCIK0fMBvaM67jZQZHo5QgOegElincCPNIb4ogPPrKT5+Jc+s6r8WX6gQR 4A== Original-Received: from aserp3030.oracle.com (aserp3030.oracle.com [141.146.126.71]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y2p3snkvu-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 12 Feb 2020 21:36:23 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 01CLSEYx131077; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 21:36:23 GMT Original-Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by aserp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2y4k7xehbn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 12 Feb 2020 21:36:22 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0004.oracle.com (abhmp0004.oracle.com [141.146.116.10]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 01CLaLEK032629; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 21:36:21 GMT In-Reply-To: <85imkbyf88.fsf@gmail.com> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4954.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9529 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002120147 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9529 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2001150001 definitions=main-2002120147 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.51.188.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:175982 Archived-At: > >> I think Drew intended the argument that we should > >> distinguish them as a sarcastic reductio ad absurdum. > > > > Not at all. I wonder why you would think that, >=20 > When you said this: >=20 > I mean, if you're going to be comparing against a > literal value, and the doc slants you toward using > `eq' as it does >=20 > since you *don't* want the doc to slant towards `eq', > I read that paragraph as sarcastic. The actual quote: And I don't see where the doc tells you how the Lisp reader treats an integer numeral - when it gives you a fixnum and when it gives you a bignum. Shouldn't it tell you that you get a fixnum whenever the value is within the fixnum range (if that's in fact the case)? I mean, if you're going to be comparing against a literal value, and the doc slants you toward using `eq' as it does, you'll at least want to know whether some numeral ends up as a fixnum or a bignum. There's nothing the least bit sarcastic in any of that. That point/question is about what happens when a numeral is read and interpreted by Lisp. It suggests that we say something about that case. To use `eq' with a numeral you need to know when it's handled as a fixnum. If you use `eql' then that's not a consideration - you don't really need to know how the numeral is handled. But since the doc currently, in effect, promotes the use of `eq' somewhat, providing such info might help. There's no reductio ad absurdum there, let alone a sarcastic one. Putting this differently, if you compare an integer against an integer numeral then you had better use `eql', unless you know that both are fixnums, and for the latter to be true you need to know how numerals are handled. I'm guessing the following rule applies also in the case of interpreting a numeral - but if so then maybe it would help to say so explicitly: if Emacs computes an integer in fixnum range, it represents the integer as a fixnum, not a bignum. It's easy to think that a numeral isn't "computed", and so to not think that this rule applies to a numeral. At least I, as one reader, wondered how numerals are handled. > By the way, this >=20 > I'm really surprised this doc got inserted as it is. >=20 > is too easily read as a snide jab (I know, you > didn't mean it that way), so it would be nice if > you could leave out that kind of meta-opinion > from future reports. Is that a meta-opinion on your part? ;-) I think it may be too easy for you to read it that way because you're perhaps trying to read my bug reports that way. Maybe chill a bit? Actually, I was just expressing my surprise, as Eli usually shepherds new doc sufficiently well that such things don't happen. And I mean that sincerely, as a compliment. (Darn, another meta-opinion. (Darn, another meta-meta-opinion that risks being taken as sarcasm. (Darn, yet another. (D...)))) As for avoiding sarcasm (even humor) in mail: Sure. But a companion rule of etiquette might be to avoid attributing malevolence when a simple, constructive reading will do. The golden rule implies offering the benefit of the doubt. The "you" in my bug report was consistently the user. The report was technical, not a rant. It wasn't I who took this to the personal/meta level. How about we turn now to the technical content - the problem reported? Any thoughts on that?