Re: obnoxious byte-compiler warning from using lsh

[Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > We are aware that ash and lsh are not the same, but we still want to
  > urge people to use ash, since in our experience most uses of lsh are
  > mistakes.

That may be true, but I find the existing doc string confusing.  It
says

    This function is provided for compatibility.  In new code, use ‘ash’
    instead.

To me, that means that `lsh' and `ash' are equivalent and you should
simply replace the former with the latter.  Of course, they are not
equivalent, and I don't think that's what the person who wrote that
text, meant, but I can't see what it is intended to mean.  Simply
using `ash' instead of `lsh' is not correct.

How about this?

    Most uses of this function turn out to be mistakes.
    Before you use it, we urge you to think very carefully
    about whether COUNT will ever be negative, and if so,
    what results your program needs to get in that case.  If you can
    do the job with code that uses `ash' instead, we recommend that.



-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)