obnoxious byte-compiler warning from using lsh

obnoxious byte-compiler warning from using lsh

[Noah Friedman]

The the master branch, the docstring for `lsh' says:

    This function is provided for compatibility.  In new code, use `ash'
    instead."

`lsh' and `ash' are not the same thing, the difference is important and
they are both essential operators.  This proffered suggestion, along with
the byte compiler warning, is...well, it's not even wrong. It's just a
non-sequitur.

Re: obnoxious byte-compiler warning from using lsh

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Noah Friedman <noah@splode.com>
> Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2023 03:26:09 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> The the master branch, the docstring for `lsh' says:
> 
>     This function is provided for compatibility.  In new code, use `ash'
>     instead."
> 
> `lsh' and `ash' are not the same thing, the difference is important and
> they are both essential operators.  This proffered suggestion, along with
> the byte compiler warning, is...well, it's not even wrong. It's just a
> non-sequitur.

We are aware that ash and lsh are not the same, but we still want to
urge people to use ash, since in our experience most uses of lsh are
mistakes.

If you have a real-life use case where using ash simply isn't going to
work, please describe it.

Thanks.

Re: obnoxious byte-compiler warning from using lsh

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > We are aware that ash and lsh are not the same, but we still want to
  > urge people to use ash, since in our experience most uses of lsh are
  > mistakes.

That may be true, but I find the existing doc string confusing.  It
says

    This function is provided for compatibility.  In new code, use ‘ash’
    instead.

To me, that means that `lsh' and `ash' are equivalent and you should
simply replace the former with the latter.  Of course, they are not
equivalent, and I don't think that's what the person who wrote that
text, meant, but I can't see what it is intended to mean.  Simply
using `ash' instead of `lsh' is not correct.

How about this?

    Most uses of this function turn out to be mistakes.
    Before you use it, we urge you to think very carefully
    about whether COUNT will ever be negative, and if so,
    what results your program needs to get in that case.  If you can
    do the job with code that uses `ash' instead, we recommend that.



-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

Re: obnoxious byte-compiler warning from using lsh

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> Cc: noah@splode.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 20:41:16 -0400
> 
> How about this?
> 
>     Most uses of this function turn out to be mistakes.
>     Before you use it, we urge you to think very carefully
>     about whether COUNT will ever be negative, and if so,
>     what results your program needs to get in that case.  If you can
>     do the job with code that uses `ash' instead, we recommend that.

Thanks, I made it say

  Most uses of this function turn out to be mistakes.  We recommend
  to use `ash' instead, unless COUNT could ever be negative, and
  if, when COUNT is negative, your program really needs the special
  treatment of negative COUNT provided by this function.