From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Adam Porter Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master a6b5985: Avoid duplicated character classes in rx Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 21:27:54 -0600 Message-ID: <87y2vksvut.fsf@alphapapa.net> References: <20191203142243.9552.27513@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20191203142246.0615C20A2B@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <79A83C7D-610F-4CA4-B5E9-7F11FD8A9365@acm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="269924"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 10 04:28:40 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 1ieWCW-001878-CE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 04:28:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49772 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ieWCV-0003YS-25 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 22:28:39 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53147) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ieWC1-0003Y9-3h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 22:28:10 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ieWBz-0003jw-8k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 22:28:09 -0500 Original-Received: from 195-159-176-226.customer.powertech.no ([195.159.176.226]:46338 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ieWBz-0003jZ-2I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 22:28:07 -0500 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ieWBw-0017VQ-3q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 04:28:04 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 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:243271 Archived-At: Juanma Barranquero writes: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 8:47 PM Drew Adams wrote: > >> FWIW, I disagree that it's necessary, or even worthwhile/helpful, >> to avoid using the return value of `push'. >> >> And I think the return value should be documented. > > Well, I would perhaps agree, for CL compatibility' sake. But I think > this is, up to a point, just bikeshedding. As shown, in 99,92% of cases > the return value is not used, and in the 0,08% that it is used, it's > just to avoid > > (progn (push value variable) variable) > > or > > (progn (push value variable) t) > > And it's a fact that, although push's return value *is* documented in > CL, it has never been so in Emacs, at least going back to cl.el in > Emacs 20 (even back then, there were just vague promises that it was > similar to `setf'). There are hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of lines of Elisp in third-party packages and user configurations in the world. Removing the return value of `push' would be a breaking change affecting innumerable users. It would break the existing, implicit API that has existed since Emacs 20, released 22 years ago. And for what? The sake of not adding "and returns VALUE" to the docstring and manual? > So it'd be nice if it were documented, but it is not, and the few > places that use it can easily be fixed. No big deal, not worth > discussing it IMO. By the same logic, it'd be nice if it were documented, and with a few words added to a few files, it can easily be documented. No big deal, not worth discussing it IMO. >> (This is like not documenting the return value of `progn' or `setq`'. ;-)) > > The return value of `progn' is part of its interface and use. As > for `setq', it wouldn't be earthshaking if it wasn't documented. `push' is a standard Lisp feature and has been for decades. An oversight of a few words in the Elisp documentation is not reason to break over 20 years of Elisp code. What's going on? What is the motivation here?