From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master a6b5985: Avoid duplicated character classes in rx Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 23:13:06 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20191203142243.9552.27513@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20191203142246.0615C20A2B@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <79A83C7D-610F-4CA4-B5E9-7F11FD8A9365@acm.org> <87y2vksvut.fsf@alphapapa.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="177120"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Adam Porter Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 10 05:13:55 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ieWuH-000jyH-Fu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 05:13:53 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50132 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ieWuF-0006GH-Sz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 23:13:51 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59240) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ieWtl-0006Fy-2y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 23:13:22 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ieWtj-0007CK-Ik for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 23:13:20 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:46501) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ieWtj-0007Bw-CZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 23:13:19 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B85B280AB5; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 23:13:17 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 74D2180B9B; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 23:13:15 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1575951195; bh=PR18XJIZarMX9wI7/bRXuH+SjozmjGTpqBOkNMN4mPU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=UC1CJj349Z5gnftQuxj1uJCB1doQCRbaNmlSwkmXZr91s6dCTcvYsebegM7z6SiCX WX6QUJZgDwc/g/vqU9O1VvuYuw5QofQSHUnog5vy5epIVerLEj7xPqRrqm33UszG/T VYVIdSJyvSXqA424HbuOf4sxCHbekG8abotyxyDqJizqOE0gFVq59WED4bqWFtPVR6 xQcNhf/6/9q+vaRdu0Ibc4Qd4ZY5gwIh9LAI9NWOWACulydoqGLN8h6RBjqtVXakOq 7ge/0FbvnFWHvaPpAWhQ0Tnf3BiPoEpJMkR42sFzWPZe5IE7DXTPjEDU0VYatwtbZQ 8yp9fbdufEFoA== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [157.52.13.227]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 079771203A9; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 23:13:14 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87y2vksvut.fsf@alphapapa.net> (Adam Porter's message of "Mon, 09 Dec 2019 21:27:54 -0600") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 132.204.25.50 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:243272 Archived-At: > There are hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of lines of Elisp in > third-party packages and user configurations in the world. Removing the > return value of `push' would be a breaking change affecting innumerable > users. That's called a straw man argument: no one suggested "removing the return value". >> So it'd be nice if it were documented, but it is not, and the few >> places that use it can easily be fixed. No big deal, not worth >> discussing it IMO. > By the same logic, it'd be nice if it were documented, and with a few > words added to a few files, it can easily be documented. No big deal, > not worth discussing it IMO. Exactly. It's a question opinion. I.e. a bikeshedding subject (which indeed is more or less synonymous with "not worth discussing" ;-) When I was maintainer I decided not to document the return value. Eli is free to make another choice, of course. But please, let's remember that it's just an opinion. There's no right or wrong choice. Stefan