From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: tsugutomo.enami@jp.sony.com Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#18253: 24.4.50; doc string of `remq': correct it per the doc of `remove' Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:31:01 +0900 Message-ID: References: <8ef12222-3e52-4775-ac7f-884030340412@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1409117790 19033 80.91.229.3 (27 Aug 2014 05:36:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:36:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 18253@debbugs.gnu.org, tsugutomo.enami@jp.sony.com To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 27 07:36:22 2014 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 1XMVu9-0003Cz-IE for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:36:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57577 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XMVu9-0006Bv-6f for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:36:21 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38926) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XMVty-00065s-PV for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:36:18 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XMVtr-0001s8-9b for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:36:10 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:46206) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XMVtr-0001s1-77 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:36:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XMVtq-0000FZ-CJ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:36:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: tsugutomo.enami@jp.sony.com Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:36:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 18253 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 18253-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B18253.1409117704879 (code B ref 18253); Wed, 27 Aug 2014 05:36:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 18253) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Aug 2014 05:35:04 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53146 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XMVsu-0000E7-1n for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:35:04 -0400 Original-Received: from ms4.sony.co.jp ([211.125.136.198]:35112) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XMVsq-0000DV-Qq for 18253@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 01:35:02 -0400 Original-Received: from mta6.noc.sony.co.jp ([IPv6:2001:cf8:0:192::43]) by ms4.sony.co.jp (R8/Sony) with ESMTP id s7R5Yqqi017791 for <18253@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:34:52 +0900 (JST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,408,1406559600"; d="scan'208";a="32574813" Original-Received: from sigxcpu.sm.sony.co.jp ([43.4.4.150]) by mrelay6.noc.sony.co.jp with ESMTP; 27 Aug 2014 14:34:54 +0900 Original-Received: by sigxcpu.sm.sony.co.jp (Postfix, from userid 8324) id 34D1F2DF7C; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:31:01 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x 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:92708 Archived-At: Hi, > And most (all other?) Lisps have given it the same behavior as `remove', > the only difference being to use `eq' instead of `equal'. IOW, they > systematically copy the sequence. How about to avoid the use of word `copy' to describe both `remq' and `remove'? The point of remq/remove is non-destructive operation. Whether it returns a copy or not is not important. This matches CL's `remove' definition. Actually, even the current `remove' implementation does not return a copy when SEQ is not a list and there is nothing to remove. If document explicitly says it returns a copy, reader might think destructive operation can be performed on the result of both functions while expecting original sequence unmodified. enami.