From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#12314: 24.2.50; `add-to-history': use `setq' with `delete' Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2012 17:37:53 -0400 Message-ID: References: <7602D24B74DE42CF9901322634B85CA2@us.oracle.com> <87sjas4mc2.fsf@gnu.org> <83ipbomv6e.fsf@gnu.org> <2C45207ADF0E46BC98AF1B486695F632@us.oracle.com> <83fw6smti6.fsf@gnu.org> <9A8F619FD7584123A6319BD089E444E4@us.oracle.com> <83bohgmrdv.fsf@gnu.org> <83a9x0mq5e.fsf@gnu.org> <8E40573C868D4B339513A16A02588F5E@us.oracle.com> <837gs4mcqy.fsf@gnu.org> <83627nnc2l.fsf@gnu.org> <83392rm840.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1347226718 17157 80.91.229.3 (9 Sep 2012 21:38:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 21:38:38 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 12314@debbugs.gnu.org, cyd@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 09 23:38:40 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TApDD-0006Vq-CH for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 23:38:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50265 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TApDA-0006fQ-2d for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 17:38:36 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:33934) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TApD7-0006f7-Lo for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 17:38:34 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TApD5-0007Bz-TN for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 17:38:33 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:41185) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TApD5-0007Bt-Py for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 17:38:31 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TApDZ-0007ky-S5 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 17:39:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2012 21:39:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 12314 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 12314-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B12314.134722670829771 (code B ref 12314); Sun, 09 Sep 2012 21:39:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 12314) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Sep 2012 21:38:28 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50731 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TApD1-0007k8-KS for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 17:38:27 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]:9299) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TApCz-0007k1-Uy for 12314@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 17:38:26 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ai0FAG6Zu0+4rxAc/2dsb2JhbABEsEiDSYEIghUBAQQBViMQCzQSFBgNJIgcBboJkEQDozOBWIMF X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,637,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="197920465" Original-Received: from 184-175-16-28.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO fmsmemgm.homelinux.net) ([184.175.16.28]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 09 Sep 2012 17:37:53 -0400 Original-Received: by fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 949BEAE1FC; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 17:37:53 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83392rm840.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sun, 09 Sep 2012 20:14:23 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:64021 Archived-At: >> > I meant "why does it matter FOR THE USER that the modification was >> > destructive?" Users don't care about optimizations, they only care >> > about performance. >> Because this optimization improves performance, > But this optimization was already done. We don't tell users in the > manuals about each and every optimization we do to improve > performance, do we? I don't understand the question: the user of delete/delq/nconc (the one reading their docstring or their texinfo doc) is the person reading/writing the code, and the optimization is the act of choosing delete over remove or delq over remq or nconc over append, which is exactly what the reader will want to know, I think. Stefan