From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#73709: 29.4; Doc of `file-newer-than-file-p' Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 09:03:09 +0300 Message-ID: <86wmifyy5e.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86h69msbhi.fsf@gnu.org> <87set6aytj.fsf@web.de> <864j5l4d2x.fsf@gnu.org> <86zfnc1hzo.fsf@gnu.org> <878quvtqrf.fsf@web.de> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="35594"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 73709@debbugs.gnu.org, stefankangas@gmail.com, drew.adams@oracle.com To: Michael Heerdegen Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 11 08:04:17 2024 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 1sz8l7-00096F-0C for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 08:04:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sz8kl-0005pC-A5; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 02:03:55 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sz8kg-0005o2-3B for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 02:03:50 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sz8kf-0004cl-Re for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 02:03:49 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debbugs.gnu.org; s=debbugs-gnu-org; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:To:Subject; bh=QYP4b1JxsoH3aFZM/AawySiHI2QhvF46RWFt5X8Mv9Q=; b=KAx9bBdtu1oDINM8nJUoBREloWXq+ldyBEhBNsr+yUxNQBnD7MmAWmVPsO8mf3ZzqOx8OD/Vkhc4ZCYzuMnL0lygMTa8kbBNcU/Fq3fOWqBldc20fYOXrj6ijNiizb2j4zYdxSzJFr+XaB+EYVaONwK4KioD8nVFEWAzM3TiJ369Fyo+fNw5F8MLb/yUbQdG9SVIqrC2souxBQWxdTWzBrPAzERKrlYImhWzAQuuOQViwWH9se4gquB2ocmcGjit3VVac3AHiEKnEK4alRBgX2ufGQzd1FUi+KydoHTmMdHdRfGFng2CpvfUOkyJLN9YjEJL92QB8m2iz8yhjlLjMw==; Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sz8ks-0003yT-0m for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 02:04:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 06:04:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 73709 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: notabug wontfix Original-Received: via spool by 73709-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B73709.172862661415239 (code B ref 73709); Fri, 11 Oct 2024 06:04:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 73709) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Oct 2024 06:03:34 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33160 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sz8kP-0003xi-KZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 02:03:33 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:47872) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1sz8kN-0003xS-1O for 73709@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 02:03:32 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sz8k4-0004VJ-Sn; Fri, 11 Oct 2024 02:03:13 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=QYP4b1JxsoH3aFZM/AawySiHI2QhvF46RWFt5X8Mv9Q=; b=NVDg8+FKfoVy famKisGWyncWzCnGqQj7cA8dSzdrngtJkzOXu4tFsHCamuA4f1WG9KJeET45XmlIQQD2ryTT7yh3K o66Rv9/LNFfdJ/y8NaWhrGpcWMpIrrF6A2mnjpkF7bexz4G1kSm7DTv8UKEqCeOhf1DQJ4md2cYwb f4lFTO/7mf7KUHkUk/+JNDsztnChEdPP74PU9BtsNbYX3++uvz6Eb4w6COQ54HT3D8RKxajN4JDDZ hpl5k212J3cQO5A2t9fVLKuQ2yV+GZf/bInO6uxAutMV86JmgpifC7TVlsx+uhfvTq95nGuDxDCUm 5PKCah65wTqVrPMw33B/wQ==; In-Reply-To: <878quvtqrf.fsf@web.de> (message from Michael Heerdegen on Fri, 11 Oct 2024 02:41:40 +0200) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:293331 Archived-At: > From: Michael Heerdegen > Cc: Stefan Kangas , 73709@debbugs.gnu.org, > drew.adams@oracle.com > Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 02:41:40 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > IOW, the addition I just made per your request breaks the (useful, > > IMO) abstraction we had. > > If you had an abstraction it should be possible to describe it. It _was_ described. "Newer" is a simple word that everyone should understand. If "newer" is still not enough understood, we should have discussed how to make it more clear without leaking the abstraction. > This is actually what I wanted. The problem with what we had was > that people who did not yet know the abstraction could read > something different than intended. No, the request was explicitly to add specific technical details about how we implement the abstraction. Which is what we have now, and I think it's a step in the wrong direction. > > For what good reasons? > > One reason was that I had misunderstood the docstring and that this may > happen to others. I really would like to know why that doesn't count as > a reason. Because the request was to address the misunderstanding by exposing the details of the implementation. Once we start talking about file creation time vs file modification time (and don't forget file last-access time), we are not clarifying the abstraction, we are leaking the details of the implementation. Maybe I was mistaken in my interpretation of the request, but then please re-read the thread and point me to the part where the request was something other than explicitly mention the file's mtime in the doc string and the manual.