From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Andreas =?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=B6hler?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#28736: 24.5; doc of `push' Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 09:13:04 +0200 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: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0595B02D271A6C0C7F9B70E1" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1507532239 11842 195.159.176.226 (9 Oct 2017 06:57:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 06:57:19 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 To: 28736@debbugs.gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 09 08:57:13 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 1e1Rzx-0001up-5b for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 08:57:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56406 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e1S04-0005gJ-EY for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 02:57:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54030) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e1Rzv-0005ep-Sz for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 02:57:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e1Rzq-0007yh-6f for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 02:57:07 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:48340) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e1Rzq-0007ya-26 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 02:57:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e1Rzp-0003x6-NL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 02:57:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Andreas =?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=B6hler?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 06:57:01 +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: X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.150753218015144 (code B ref -1); Mon, 09 Oct 2017 06:57:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Oct 2017 06:56:20 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57021 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e1RzA-0003wC-Do for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 02:56:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34677) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e1Rz8-0003vw-Ch for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 02:56:18 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e1Rz1-0007iJ-VF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 02:56:13 -0400 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:58668) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e1Rz1-0007iF-RG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 02:56:11 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53878) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e1Rz0-0005WJ-Gz for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 02:56:11 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e1Ryw-0007gG-Kl for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 02:56:10 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.13]:55879) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e1Ryw-0007ec-8z for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 02:56:06 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.168.178.35] ([77.12.177.117]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue103 [212.227.15.183]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LlHiI-1dSwB33PgE-00b6am for ; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 08:56:04 +0200 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:tsj8zmcNglpJwJxvXe7qp1MgXfKWpC4ThcWIwzvkP7MO38rTDNo v5FAdNIf7SPoqtB4zQVNnnPQDJmHgkg1Gc7WQEa6xqswBaSiqCMFEVS7HtKW0Qp+KBSbf47 0PsxCOrx9cqpBFR6gNzPR8kQkgOmtkUj8E1qNdJmb8kpB6Zh766si6HuCI+/dD99t9Zjppa T9ROYAb90xPc5wCNkPBGA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:RH9L3JpPv68=:BwmaMJrCKqCfW5dtEs/GYz zYjI/XJVk34EIcp87tme3A2CP6PkgoxEg2Derf3BM5IvnOs93yWkhGYTopWaKl6ffIQk8ULIr AuM46taytU+eMTUhKMtczBZGK41nh2zL5Pvd7i4xVK4c8lC5Y9PmrGoV5OjKoJhzHesg+i7je hQNlT+ssJ3jnPVPA3yEC3R03Wc5o1xUYStanQEuI9gwdj03Xml993AfFuz7ze8k9PulArCqWs tLS1LpsPMb1FumPjzFuew2nq9quHGBehZfdMfMIfpJWlNWG6p73Qapr37tFyk9apAOVa8YRip ijyLw23PWhlD+pnBH5A4rV90GKww/UAszTJ2eZ8IZ8EBwyHMzy9EMmUdcREfROwl8Pfkls6Vy AGlHHhHhsFs2cc0bTOhe2HpdN2DpkEhB0wT4uIusiwCW5GnMsBjSz1kk9m6mdeBYEPRf4VxWp RuD6ZWkUi8A1EogFA13FpHD6wkPiPHsUnYpg/olkbRiwP4eoFFnacJGke8MgmIFXqmxvAX7rn s6IfNNKhEL+9TR+lamaNWYfxSwg6HeutpX3sPUf+K2Q/UuiU2moNDapPQdh75jmgKsGaXSPDn 3SbDS00lSANhSGlARYNgjdQ6eW84AxreAClabAyHegksWJKoJbz0zTLOArcKTO/5jQcyravh6 +vStrDDIvvomqoCfZm4ESKL4/b95Ks56rfyOBNkjA3FUSsFdyUuRF1pAe+qrVVBdCxlIWaj3B x4nZw966p/TX/wEEJIySg/x7cBiMGcyCwtoj9Mwkpq+Wb1dQ89eQ2WMlnJU= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x 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:138098 Archived-At: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------0595B02D271A6C0C7F9B70E1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 08.10.2017 21:40, Drew Adams wrote: >>>>> 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? >> No. >> >>> When was that decided? >> 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. > > 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. > > > +1 --------------0595B02D271A6C0C7F9B70E1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



On 08.10.2017 21:40, Drew Adams wrote:
why is it a problem to document this?

<Shrug> Because we don't want to guarantee the return
value won't change in the future?

Are you sure?

No.


When was that decided?

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. 

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.

+1
--------------0595B02D271A6C0C7F9B70E1--