From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Michael Heerdegen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#17623: 24.4.50; incorrect example for `apply-partially' in (elisp) `Calling Functions' Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 17:29:09 +0200 Message-ID: <87zgqzsqt6.fsf@web.de> References: <9fd43ff1-d6cf-4ac6-b173-2fd634f45a98@default> <871tua2o12.fsf@web.de> <1ac7ebe5-6b43-4367-beb8-df7d9f5b6750@default> <87tx75ni8k.fsf@web.de> <8338ep6kk1.fsf@gnu.org> <87pphsor8h.fsf@web.de> <83tx746fgd.fsf@gnu.org> <87ee8cyt1m.fsf@web.de> <83bl3g55t5.fsf@gnu.org> <87ilxnuczs.fsf@web.de> <835ytn6fzy.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="23502"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: 17623@debbugs.gnu.org, stefan@marxist.se To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 23 17:30:17 2021 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 1meIyO-0005uW-Oq for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 17:30:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49990 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1meIyN-0000ri-ML for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:30:15 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51646) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1meIyB-0000oV-1n for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:30:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:53597) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1meIyA-0004Ls-Oo for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:30:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meIyA-0007Mk-HG for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:30:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Michael Heerdegen Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 15:30:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17623 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 17623-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17623.163500296028241 (code B ref 17623); Sat, 23 Oct 2021 15:30:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17623) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Oct 2021 15:29:20 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36909 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meIxU-0007LQ-5U for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:29:20 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.11]:34949) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1meIxR-0007LC-Em for 17623@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:29:19 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=web.de; s=dbaedf251592; t=1635002950; bh=153UxxLPz6BnPDNkSYehWxNX5t8MKHizDz+EMj1reyY=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=heRC7h3fmcukLJDGZrVUs3R1eso3Cafw0817oO5Pawy1xab33xPBAh41q6KzSMob1 3Z35FOUxsr+P3kV7utqkxQ/pBwbRzfZ0i29g/UKId9l+xQsqFkAhvzzGIdO9UYFp0d T0aOyVIQ4q59HMwd9ouOAju9xXtkjVc4NFzr2xlI= X-UI-Sender-Class: c548c8c5-30a9-4db5-a2e7-cb6cb037b8f9 Original-Received: from drachen.dragon ([92.208.225.87]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb106 [213.165.67.124]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MjxiM-1n6zwk1jOi-00kdLc; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 17:29:10 +0200 In-Reply-To: <835ytn6fzy.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 23 Oct 2021 16:13:37 +0300") X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:JbxgLGqNu4zIgAOr0rcjOVU9kQCLjZ5s7GXR4q+05kdOh4+WMN9 4IQPv7y1+Ln5otKOOYLcykbl0eQb+vbwUU+xQonrKzSLo6y/jZ1JmyrjS1hGmgQRVxFnEhP 9i5H7Bqg3gc1BusHInuaqXBLxQYmZHDfFY1jYbAtFcnL9sM7YfrjIWxV2Q/E9QYYDP7V0h8 Ylob0gdqQ2yfaPgHp9p1Q== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:l0u5h2EwQ+Y=:pPDiHw9R1uUmfPQA90n/Ri nixXV34ssUOPbD/VSIP7xjbd7IRFtXVHX8E75ZQYv3msLFj3cI++cm9WWSzOsJAG940LieQ5c 5Bw0/XOx+q8/ZI7ATfuWM8TPiCIoyU7GUdzoSHWPzRpR7jJl0DDDwuKPkSNYzHDq8G9rw91EI 0C3tecvFGvrvdsUIsO+pVAWibp8Z/IijdiD6pmtq08M/vWyhL7mRbJGyRPSfbT1l9JfBdvX1C 6WanZ1mrj2NU6uuQxsQmbJeoSeOfD8Vco9d6XCyXS7srKK3SOOHwt9jfqbw3lOU9lARP3SJVm PLCcJEY2UKBfn0l2l+crkfFzVwGt6yge10MZXkLK8+CtsFNANDKJVCjRboyAgoMdEEdRHUC5u z5+zalgz6y/o+Dj2MlgszU6qKUGQ/oa/dMyh10pSGJ55H9JPbd+gba29xX4rr0eOQSvVzBo1w W3KQyhCKk34EfjruPcbC2S3s4jYt7n5AY/Fnc+DmzuLXZYOLFPFzZJZL67mis800BR084soLx 8H9400FJa+f5MF0JHizfn+hKKiU2kPKy7Oog8TBOaXVvSfa2IljT+6z1AF05OndfIH9dVPhs3 54O7eehBaYJ/9/qx0ItCTh12hdaUHTNar8NVzEemPHfb6IXIndcic2NL9SejWELPZNGdM+Sxv UcrGRun2A/6Ur60DlUd0k3ZWuspIoP/enVbL+Ax1050RpQhVE5U8HiIajR6Z6/+QLysDqE914 onghDqnmiWTXptzZJ5G65144R9doYjDItycadHk3yCB9txhP24OeO3Jd4V54flMiTtTd9D8G 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:217996 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > > But Emacs' `1+' accepts one argument. > > Why does it matter? Because the text talks about the number of accepted arguments, right in the preceding lines. > The example shows a function created by apply-partially, it doesn't > say the result is exactly bug-for-bug compatible with the existing > primitive. Suppose we would enhance the built-in 1+ to accept any > number of arguments: would you then retract your objections? why? Yes, because then it would be a correct replacement. > > 1 /= infinity. Different functions. > > Actually, I think the issue here is that infinity - 1 = infinity. In this context this is correct. What issue? > Anyway, you are saying that, because the description in the manual > doesn't pedantically cover the case of functions that can accept any > number of arguments, it is incorrect? Really?? Can't you image that some people might have a look at the number of accepted arguments of the example -- directly after we talked about the number of accepted arguments of the result of an `apply-partially' call -- to check if they understood the paragraph correctly? Is this really that far fetched? > I'm sorry for this lecture, but it is my impression that you sometimes > forget about this when you talk about our documentation -- this is not > the first time we argue about similar stuff for similar reasons. You don't seem to want to consider that what is a simplification for one makes the thing harder to understand for others. We should aim for a documentation that is good for learning for everyone, not only for people who think and learn like you. Really, I'm a bit irritated about your reactions. Is my way of learning and reading wrong in your eyes? If I say I find that text or detail confusing - is it just that this can't be true, and that's it? Or my mistake? Or does it not matter? > That paragraph doesn't explain the arity. It doesn't mention that > word even once. It explains apply-partially, not arity. That "N". It is called the arity of that function. Also M-N. > It wasn't, because it wasn't suggested anywhere I could see in the > discussion. I've no objections to adding this as a footnote, FWIW. Then please do that. Michael.