bug#42323: 26.3; Doc string of `seq-map'

[Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de>]

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> It is, indeed, pretty obscure.  Like Drew, I wonder -- do we really
> have to put these implementation details in the doc string at all?
> Opinions?

[ Such things were often knitted with hot needle by Stefan, left for us
as "an exercise", to formulate positive ]

Details: yes, it's good to have a list of implementations.  Obscure:
No.  The generated doc of implementations is indeed rather obscure.
Needs a good heart to fix:


> Implementations:
>
> #'(sequence sequence) in ‘seq.el’.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What syntax is that actually?  An accident?


> Undocumented

I would remove "Undocumented", it makes the text rather unreadable when
repeated often.

> #'sequence in ‘seq.el’.
>
> Undocumented

I wonder to what that is actually referring to.  There is only one
implementation in seq.el...?


Regards,

Michael.