bug#30458: [External] : Re: bug#30458: hash table reverse-lookup (get-keys VALUE TABLE) => KEYS

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> > Still, I would ask to have general reverse-lookup functions
> > for a hash table, as well.  Would someone please retitle this
> > bug for that?
> 
> We have this now in the form of `map-filter' (and friends),
> so I'm closing this bug report.

It's fine that we have `map-filter' and friends.
But that doesn't really help very directly, or in
terms of discoverability.  It's easy to discover
`rassoc', given `assoc' (e.g., just use `apropos',
or look up `assoc' in the manual, or just look up
"association list").

Being able to realize this functionality "in the
form of `map-filter' (& friends)" isn't so helpful.

And has the _doc about hash tables_ been updated
to indicate just how to do a reverse lookup?

Node `Association Lists' of the Elisp manual tells
you about `assoc', `rassoc', and `assq' (and more)
together.  Why?  Because their doc belongs together.

If a similar/equivalent treatment hasn't been done
for hash tables - provide a direct function and fix
the doc - then I don't consider this bug to have
been fixed.  Instead, in that case it's just another
"won't fix".

The aim shouldn't be to find a reason to close bug
reports.  The aim should be to fix bugs.  If the bug
was really fixed, then thanks!  If not, no thanks.

Saying that one can program using this, that, and
the other thing (XYZ "and friends") to work around
the lack of some feature is no replacement for
providing that missing feature directly.

`rassoc' and `rassq' have been in Lisp since about
Day One.  There's a reason for that.