From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daniel Mendler Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] `affixation-function`: Allow only three-element lists Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2021 23:04:15 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87h7jujmbn.fsf@mail.linkov.net> <02eb444c-d8e2-8271-1edc-b02b3ce7f64c@daniel-mendler.de> <87wnsqgl2o.fsf@mail.linkov.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="15774"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Juri Linkov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Apr 25 23:05:37 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1lalwe-0003yj-E0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 23:05:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:32784 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lalwd-00028b-H6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 17:05:35 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49070) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lalvU-0001Wa-Cf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 17:04:24 -0400 Original-Received: from server.qxqx.de ([2a01:4f8:121:346::180]:38373 helo=mail.qxqx.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lalvS-0005Et-2h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 17:04:23 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qxqx.de; s=mail1392553390; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=UFilX3SmVsHupl33yYwyImjpTmdbs4lpXzKigz48QRw=; b=yCM4jSq5iSQ5Ipg2uXGnSBvWuy 2b+FbQCHk6zvsk6jsnCpj9G8eb4zg50EhtiCUUmOvB6nFQ5t1Tc57ZAd+170dM4HyznQxX6x7VFvW 6fv/LcM3CYj9IavC9aiQZ9vaAzGz5td+hAdON4taxs3P+j8qom04DCC27GiJS7y6NJxE=; In-Reply-To: <87wnsqgl2o.fsf@mail.linkov.net> Content-Language: en-US Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a01:4f8:121:346::180; envelope-from=mail@daniel-mendler.de; helo=mail.qxqx.de X-Spam_score_int: -41 X-Spam_score: -4.2 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:268426 Archived-At: On 4/25/21 10:34 PM, Juri Linkov wrote: > I completely agree that for `affixation-function` part of > the API is would be cleaner to document the input data as > only candidate + prefix + suffix. > > But I don't agree with `cl-assert`. It looks too odd. > Why to validate that the length of the first candidate is 3? > Why not to validate than the length of every candidate > is not more than 3? Why not to validate that there are no nils > in the list? Why not to validate there are only strings? Etc. Okay, fair enough. I am fine if the `cl-assert` is removed from the patch. The other changes should be kept though, such that we do not violate the more restricted specification. Other completion UIs may not support the two-element affixations which are then still accidentally allowed by the default completion UI. The `cl-assert` is just a cheap check to ensure that no violating affixation functions are accidentally reintroduced. But you are right that this is not fail-safe. Do you want me to send an updated patch with the `cl-assert` removed? Daniel