Re: Technically correct or conceptually easier?

["Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro" <oitofelix@gnu.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1085 bytes --]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>>   If the value is a list, disregard ‘buffer-read-only’ and disregard a
>>   ‘read-only’ text property if the property value is a member of the
>>   list.
>> Well, nil is a list.
> I think this case is a documentation error: it should say "a non-empty
> list", although admittedly, the context makes it clearish what is meant.

Fair enough.  Albeit ~(and (not null) list)~ and ~cons~ are the same
class of Lisp objects, perhaps the former appeals more to /intention,
intuition or common sense/ (and thus maybe it’s more appropriate for a
docstring)[1] than the latter --- even if formally more complex.


Footnotes: 

[1] Although I’m inclined to think that in situations like this, if the
very same objects are seem as somewhat distinct things because of
different (but equivalent) descriptions, the problem is with the human
understanding and bias towards reality: distinction without a
difference.

-- 
Bruno Félix Rezende Ribeiro (oitofelix) [0x28D618AF]
<http://oitofelix.freeshell.org/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]