From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#28736: 24.5; doc of `push' Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 12:40:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <<<<53afe0a4-8ce5-45fc-9e18-6bf52018c9b6@default>>>> <<<<83h8vatbtk.fsf@gnu.org>>>> <<<09655ed0-be2c-4453-9755-224ec733e221@default>>> <<<83wp45sgrm.fsf@gnu.org>>> <<9d23e7ad-ff25-4dac-b598-6614b272bebc@default>> <<83tvz9se2s.fsf@gnu.org>> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1507491680 2741 195.159.176.226 (8 Oct 2017 19:41:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 19:41:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 28736@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 08 21:41:16 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e1HRj-0007lb-Gn for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 08 Oct 2017 21:41:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54818 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e1HRq-00005h-Nc for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 08 Oct 2017 15:41:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47946) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e1HRh-00005H-DF for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Oct 2017 15:41:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e1HRe-0004jO-BD for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Oct 2017 15:41:05 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:48001) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e1HRe-0004jJ-81 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Oct 2017 15:41:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e1HRe-0002cV-13 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Oct 2017 15:41:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Drew Adams Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2017 19:41:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 28736 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 28736-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B28736.150749162410015 (code B ref 28736); Sun, 08 Oct 2017 19:41:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 28736) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Oct 2017 19:40:24 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56682 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e1HR1-0002bT-My for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 08 Oct 2017 15:40:23 -0400 Original-Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:25623) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e1HQy-0002bG-UG for 28736@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 08 Oct 2017 15:40:22 -0400 Original-Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id v98JeEJm014834 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 8 Oct 2017 19:40:14 GMT Original-Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com [156.151.31.75]) by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v98JeDQj010529 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 8 Oct 2017 19:40:13 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0016.oracle.com (abhmp0016.oracle.com [141.146.116.22]) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v98Je9Vs028969; Sun, 8 Oct 2017 19:40:11 GMT In-Reply-To: <<83tvz9se2s.fsf@gnu.org>> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4588.0 (x86)] X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:138083 Archived-At: > > > > why is it a problem to document this? > > > > > > Because we don't want to guarantee the return > > > value won't change in the future? > > > > Are you sure? >=20 > No. >=20 > > When was that decided? >=20 > I don't know if it was decided and when, I was just wondering > whether the lack of documentation is deliberate or an omission. Good. Neither do I know that we don't want to guarantee that the return value won't change. Nor do I know whether the lack of documentation was deliberate or not. Nor do I know a reason why we wouldn't want to document the behavior, guarantee or no guarantee.=20 Not having any reason to think there was a deliberate decision not to document this, and not knowing any good reason why it should not be documented, whether it was deliberate or (a priori more likely) an oversight, and knowing good reasons why it _should_ be documented (it is useful, and documenting that use is the practice in Lisp in general, and it fits what we do for things like `setq'), this should be a no-brainer, IMO. But if there is a good reason why it should not be documented, let's hear it, please.