From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Returning argument string (regexp-quote) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 19:44:21 +0200 Message-ID: <658AF539-1AE7-459D-94C7-44970AA94EEF@acm.org> References: <83sgoloedi.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="133709"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 24 19:44:52 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iCorr-000YeL-SH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 19:44:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49454 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iCorq-0002oJ-MH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 13:44:50 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44553) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iCorX-0002ly-KJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 13:44:32 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iCorU-0008FI-4l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 13:44:29 -0400 Original-Received: from mail214c50.megamailservers.eu ([91.136.10.224]:54910 helo=mail193c50.megamailservers.eu) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iCorS-0008DD-8F; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 13:44:27 -0400 X-Authenticated-User: mattiase@bredband.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.eu; s=maildub; t=1569347063; bh=pfubZ2+OWHYte5gwNyGQYc15o4EgEUjC5/YYzAzDUiA=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=JTfe7mRveQMNlarY/tU2VTmz9hpy6a0/h3Yu3X+v9gTotd8M6jKKiIsMlHfPdhMwY m8NDITqGi88Q6aH9SWmzeSFvAyZ4Dx2DuhfdinenGq/3YnbgyKHWRy4BKrzKCX2oXd pqlp2YlpWvg13i8ZYvL7SVlTY1EYTakUOpOF7GIA= Feedback-ID: mattiase@acm.or Original-Received: from [192.168.0.4] ([188.150.171.71]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail193c50.megamailservers.eu (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id x8OHiL81006105; Tue, 24 Sep 2019 17:44:23 +0000 In-Reply-To: <83sgoloedi.fsf@gnu.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A0B0210.5D8A55F7.0049, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-Score: 0.000 X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 X-CSC: 0 X-CHA: v=2.3 cv=b7vMHeOx c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=SF+I6pRkHZhrawxbOkkvaA==:117 a=SF+I6pRkHZhrawxbOkkvaA==:17 a=jpOVt7BSZ2e4Z31A5e1TngXxSK0=:19 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=M51BFTxLslgA:10 a=mDV3o1hIAAAA:8 a=lOt7Mc0_MQz5idHy2U4A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=_FVE-zBwftR9WsbkzFJk:22 a=pHzHmUro8NiASowvMSCR:22 a=Ew2E2A-JSTLzCXPT_086:22 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x (no timestamps) [generic] X-Received-From: 91.136.10.224 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:240280 Archived-At: 24 sep. 2019 kl. 18.20 skrev Eli Zaretskii : >=20 >> More generally, do we need to preserve allocation for functions not = specifically documented to return new strings? I can imagine there being = code that depend on it by accident, but string mutation is rare. >=20 > I think the benefits from such general changes are barely tangible, > whereas the risk of breaking someone's (perhaps even ours) code are > real. So I don't think we should do that, not in general. Very well, I shan't go on a spree. What about the specific case of = regexp-quote then? It was responsible for a sizeable portion of local consing in some = (non-public) code I was profiling. Would the change need a mention in NEWS, and/or its doc string?